59 réponses à ce sujet

[Fenris_13]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

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.

It really makes me wonder what they spend their budget on. First DA2, then ME3 (which is anything compared to DA2, but still rushed).

[Frailstrength]

You have a point with the specialty missions in Mass Effect 1; that allowed the game to feel more personal. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you about ME2 and 3. I've played through with a renegade female and a paragon male, and I have to say that the way things are playing out feels pretty different. The ending is what it is, but there is a compilation of little things that add up over time. A good example is in ME2 where you hear reports of anti human riots if you killed the council in ME1, or shop owners that call you names.

In ME3, I was without Mordin, Tali, Legion and Jack and I have to say that things felt really different. In addition, the council itself is very different in tone in how they deal with you. I had to shoot Ashley because they didn't trust me. All in all, I think what you're seeing is a difference in vision. Mass Effect One is about exploring, about getting to know the galaxy and defining how you want to play. ME2 is about people; that is super obvious from early on. ME3 is about war. There are things in ME1 that don't fit ME3's themes, and vice versa. There are of course design issues I don't necessarily agree with, and creative choices that should have been scrapped altogether (Diana Allers).
Bioware mistepped when they promised 16 endings. What they should have said was a few main endings with small variations. However, unless the clarification explains better, what we got were three endings. They have done an awful lot of good; they deserve some patience.

[Bcoolpro]

Should also keep in mind the Alpha Protocol is just one game... it did not have to carry choices over multiple games. I thought a balance was struck and began to see the impact of choices as more nuanced after ME2. All three games start at a fixed point and then open up so that certain choices impact repercussions. However, they also all funnel back down to a more linear ending. Maybe it's lack of recourses or a lack of technology either way I believe Bioware had broken some new ground here and it may take more time to estimate it's real impact.

[AzaggThoth]

Wanting a way to keep a content available for new players is all well and good but if your going to go that route, you really need to find a way to do it without makeing your loyal audience feel like they were lied to. Even with the Rachni Queen vs Breeder example it seemed more like a bad excuse than a proper reason. I think a change rather than a full alternative mission could have made a heck of a difference, without alienating the audience.

[Fiery Knight]

Bcoolpro wrote...

Should also keep in mind the Alpha Protocol is just one game... it did not have to carry choices over multiple games. I thought a balance was struck and began to see the impact of choices as more nuanced after ME2. All three games start at a fixed point and then open up so that certain choices impact repercussions. However, they also all funnel back down to a more linear ending. Maybe it's lack of recourses or a lack of technology either way I believe Bioware had broken some new ground here and it may take more time to estimate it's real impact.

While that's true, you have to keep in mind that if you look ME3 as a standalone game (especially for newcomers) you'll see that it doesn't really offer that same impact of choice and consequences.

[Fenris_13]

^Er, yes it does. You have two really big ones; Tuchanka, Rannoch, and some smaller ones. There is choice and consequences as a standalone, but not meanigful from ME1 forward.

[kalle90]

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 also agree with this, but in the end I would prefer that every replay was different. In a game about choice (or not according to Bioware) it gets dull that about 90% of content is the same no matter what you do. It would greatly boost replay value and longevity if every playthrough was 50% different even if those playthroughs are only 10 hour long.

I don't like Bioware's vision and that statement pretty much kills all my interest in future Bioware games. I'm just sad to see Alpha Protocol got so panned, atleast Human Revolution rocked and probably gets sequels although even it didn't get as acclaimed as Mass Effects.

[AlanC9]

kalle90 wrote...
I don't like Bioware's vision and that statement pretty much kills all my interest in future Bioware games. 

But Bio's games have been like this for years. That BG2 sidequest was a small fraction of the content, and a long time ago.

So how come you ever liked Bioware?

[TRUTHMACHINE]

Chewin3 wrote...

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?

i think the truth is bioware just got too ambitious with the ME trillogy. all those choices carrying over from past games was something they just could'nt fully deliver on. maybe that explains the ending a bit

[kalle90]

AlanC9 wrote...

kalle90 wrote...
I don't like Bioware's vision and that statement pretty much kills all my interest in future Bioware games. 

But Bio's games have been like this for years. That BG2 sidequest was a small fraction of the content, and a long time ago.

So how come you ever liked Bioware?

About 5 years back there were no games that import choices, except for a couple of games I've later learned about (Xenogear on these forums for example)

Baldur's Gate (though I never completed it and never played BG2), Jade Empires and KOTORs were all fine back then, but I always wished they would make our choices matter. KOTOR2 was made by Obsidian but how they handled Revan really bothered me.

Then Bioware stepped up with Mass Effect. "For the first time we make choices matter. You got this wheel and there are multiple meaningful choices that have consequences in this game and beyond". I assumed that would be the exact opposite what Weekes said about "We don't want to make choices matter too much". So yes I'm really dissapointed. Pretty much the same happened with Dragon Age 2, choices in DAO barely have an impact. I expected Bioware to elevate, but no, Alpha Protocol shows MEs did nothing special.

The other issue is the general direction of Bioware games. Less RPG, more mediocre shooting and action. Sidequests reduced into overheard fetch quests. They cut out vehicles, dialogue, hub worlds, scenes from the game which lead into Ashley for example feeling awkwardly shallow. Face imports, journals etc. are broken yet they released the game. If this game wasn't called Mass Effect "3" I wouldn't have bothered with it.

[Fenris_13]

^Yeah, that is one thing I hate about BW these days, the catter to new fans instead of the old ones. I get that you have to get newer fans to sell more copies, but really, the older fans are the ones who invest time in their games and build up feedback to improve, not the new ones.

[G00N3R7883]

Fenris_13 wrote...

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.

This kind of choice and consequence is EXACTLY what alot of fans are wanting from Bioware's games. I hope this quote (unofficial as it is) doesn't signify a shift in Bioware internally.

There's no reason Bioware shouldn't be able to do this because they've done it before, albeit contained within one game. In DA:O I killed Zevran and Sten as soon as I met them, so I missed their "content". Choice made, consequence experienced.  In ME2 the player can do the suicide mission before some loyalty missions, and then if that companion dies, they "miss out" on the loyalty mission.  Restricting the Rachni mission would be exactly the same concept, except the choice is in one game and the conseqence is in another game.

But as well, surely Bioware realise that alot of fans like to play their games more than once, making different decisions, so even if we miss the content on the first playthrough, we'll see it on another one anyway?

[HiroVoid]

G00N3R7883 wrote...
But as well, surely Bioware realise that alot of fans like to play their games more than once, making different decisions, so even if we miss the content on the first playthrough, we'll see it on another one anyway?

Not according to tracking statistics.

[kalle90]

G00N3R7883 wrote...
But as well, surely Bioware realise that alot of fans like to play their games more than once, making different decisions, so even if we miss the content on the first playthrough, we'll see it on another one anyway?

Keeping in mind that, I forgot the exact number but way over 50% of games started are not completed (according to Ubisoft atleast). Meaning most players (the crowd Bioware is catering towards) never complete the game. Out of those who manage to complete the game, most leave it at 1 playthrough. That makes it sensible Bioware wants to stuff all the content in every save so people have all the "epic goodness".

Especially when noticing how most people are panning Alpha Protocol and are completely oblivious that the 2nd playthrough can be very different. It's clear they have missed the meat of the game because most of them have completed the game once, at tops.

Alas, I doubt anyone on these ME forums hasn't completed ME atleast once (though there have been a few who say ME3 is their entry point)

[Vapaa]

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?

No they should not be restricted, and personaly I think this was handeled great, beacause if [SPOILER] you kill the queen in ME1, you will not have the possibility to bring her back the death, releasing the Breeder is a dumb move  witch is punished anyways, so yes the choice had a consequence: if you killed the queen, you can't go back

The main problem is the influence of the choice: 100 WA, but not the mission or the choices itself

[DaJe]

Making choices was one of the main incentives for people to replay the first two games many times with different Shepards.

The way ME3 handles big choices, the non-sense ending and how your Shepard gets deleted and replaced by auto dialog canon Shepard pretty much removes that incentive.

It is fascinating how ME3 managed to damage the motivation of playing these games. Schools that teach game design will probably use ME3 for negative examples in the future.

Modifié par DaJe, 11 avril 2012 - 09:19 .

[CG Drum]

kalle90 wrote...

G00N3R7883 wrote...
But as well, surely Bioware realise that alot of fans like to play their games more than once, making different decisions, so even if we miss the content on the first playthrough, we'll see it on another one anyway?

Keeping in mind that, I forgot the exact number but way over 50% of games started are not completed (according to Ubisoft atleast). Meaning most players (the crowd Bioware is catering towards) never complete the game. Out of those who manage to complete the game, most leave it at 1 playthrough. That makes it sensible Bioware wants to stuff all the content in every save so people have all the "epic goodness".

Especially when noticing how most people are panning Alpha Protocol and are completely oblivious that the 2nd playthrough can be very different. It's clear they have missed the meat of the game because most of them have completed the game once, at tops.

Alas, I doubt anyone on these ME forums hasn't completed ME atleast once (though there have been a few who say ME3 is their entry point)

I get what you are saying about a lot of games not being completed, but I just don't think that it is relevant to this series of games.  Would I buy the third film in  trilogy and just wtach that not knowing the back story, possibly but unlikely.  They knew their target market was sat and waiting having played the first two. 

For me the gameplay should have been restricted if you choose to do something in a previous game it should impact -after all what's the point otherwise. 

IMHO the problem is they have tried to cater to two very different markets with the game, RPG SP and MP .  Ideally I think they would have been better off doing ME3 as a SP only RPG just like the first two games, and then released an entirely separate game for the MP. 

I understand why they have done both together - cheaper to release only one and they are trying to get SP RPG players into the MP game.  But I honestly think that the game franchise would have easily been able to support two games and all they have actually ended up doing is dissapointing a lot of players.  I know as a SP only player I liked the game but I didn't love it like the other 2, I can't play MP so can't comment on that. So would be interested to know just how well the MP part works!

Modifié par CG Drum, 11 avril 2012 - 09:48 .

[Fenris_13]

G00N3R7883 wrote...
This kind of choice and consequence is EXACTLY what alot of fans are wanting from Bioware's games. I hope this quote (unofficial as it is) doesn't signify a shift in Bioware internally.

There's no reason Bioware shouldn't be able to do this because they've done it before, albeit contained within one game. In DA:O I killed Zevran and Sten as soon as I met them, so I missed their "content". Choice made, consequence experienced.  In ME2 the player can do the suicide mission before some loyalty missions, and then if that companion dies, they "miss out" on the loyalty mission.  Restricting the Rachni mission would be exactly the same concept, except the choice is in one game and the conseqence is in another game.

But as well, surely Bioware realise that alot of fans like to play their games more than once, making different decisions, so even if we miss the content on the first playthrough, we'll see it on another one anyway?

When you put it that way, it does sound kinda strange. Or maybe not, and BW decided that they don't want people to "miss out" on content. BW has lost their balls, so to speak.

[tehturian]

I don't see everyone's problem, Bioware used their resources for things we've always wanted such as multiplayer.

[Fiery Knight]

Fenris_13 wrote...
When you put it that way, it does sound kinda strange. Or maybe not, and BW decided that they don't want people to "miss out" on content. BW has lost their balls, so to speak.

I think this is the case as well, which is a damn shame imo if it really is true. Or maybe it is EA, who really knows.

[Fenris_13]

tehturian wrote...

I don't see everyone's problem, Bioware used their resources for things we've always wanted such as multiplayer.

Except that was something the majority didn't want.

@Hawke_12 True enough, but judging from their latest instalments, I think it's pretty safe to say that BW has lost their touch.

[Cainne Chapel]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

Well Salsa that was only ONE mission and consequently PAragons and Renegades each got one.  Of course if your paragon and renegade was high enough you could get both.

But while a main side mission they didn't want to change, there's still plenty of dialogue, War Assets, etc you can miss out on by not having played certain missions or making certain choices.  So they didn't TOTALLY change their philosophy in a sense.  

Otherwise everyone would be able to do everything and the game wouldn't have differing outcomes.

Such as the Geth/Quarian missions, the Krogan/Salarian issues, etc.  Different choices in past games can alter or downright not allow you to get some aspects out of each of those.  Granted you still get the missions but the outcomes can differ.

So all in all i think they aimed for the middle and mostly succeeded.

Although i WAS hoping the rachni would play more of a role...

[Cainne Chapel]

kalle90 wrote...

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 also agree with this, but in the end I would prefer that every replay was different. In a game about choice (or not according to Bioware) it gets dull that about 90% of content is the same no matter what you do. It would greatly boost replay value and longevity if every playthrough was 50% different even if those playthroughs are only 10 hour long.

I don't like Bioware's vision and that statement pretty much kills all my interest in future Bioware games. I'm just sad to see Alpha Protocol got so panned, atleast Human Revolution rocked and probably gets sequels although even it didn't get as acclaimed as Mass Effects.

Well AP was just a horrible game.  Choices and consequences do not a full game make.  HR was good.... but i only ever played through it twice... i dunno it got cumbersome to me towards the end and i just didn't enjoy it as much as ME, but... opinions.

Dont forget no matter what ME has a story from beginning to end, so even if the side missions are different the MAIN missions will always be the same barring a few different outcomes.

MOST games tend to be that way.  THey have a beginning a middle and an end that will generally play out the same barring a few exceptions.

[Cainne Chapel]

Fenris_13 wrote...

G00N3R7883 wrote...
This kind of choice and consequence is EXACTLY what alot of fans are wanting from Bioware's games. I hope this quote (unofficial as it is) doesn't signify a shift in Bioware internally.

There's no reason Bioware shouldn't be able to do this because they've done it before, albeit contained within one game. In DA:O I killed Zevran and Sten as soon as I met them, so I missed their "content". Choice made, consequence experienced.  In ME2 the player can do the suicide mission before some loyalty missions, and then if that companion dies, they "miss out" on the loyalty mission.  Restricting the Rachni mission would be exactly the same concept, except the choice is in one game and the conseqence is in another game.

But as well, surely Bioware realise that alot of fans like to play their games more than once, making different decisions, so even if we miss the content on the first playthrough, we'll see it on another one anyway?

When you put it that way, it does sound kinda strange. Or maybe not, and BW decided that they don't want people to "miss out" on content. BW has lost their balls, so to speak.

While its minor... you CAN still miss out on content/interaction due to past choices.

Sure it may only be a character here or there, or this bit of dialogue or the ending of a mission.  But its still altered content because of past choices.

While you can never TRULY cripple yourself ina s ense, you can still get undesired outcomes.

[kalle90]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

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 also agree with this, but in the end I would prefer that every replay was different. In a game about choice (or not according to Bioware) it gets dull that about 90% of content is the same no matter what you do. It would greatly boost replay value and longevity if every playthrough was 50% different even if those playthroughs are only 10 hour long.

I don't like Bioware's vision and that statement pretty much kills all my interest in future Bioware games. I'm just sad to see Alpha Protocol got so panned, atleast Human Revolution rocked and probably gets sequels although even it didn't get as acclaimed as Mass Effects.

Well AP was just a horrible game.  Choices and consequences do not a full game make.  HR was good.... but i only ever played through it twice... i dunno it got cumbersome to me towards the end and i just didn't enjoy it as much as ME, but... opinions.

Dont forget no matter what ME has a story from beginning to end, so even if the side missions are different the MAIN missions will always be the same barring a few different outcomes.

MOST games tend to be that way.  THey have a beginning a middle and an end that will generally play out the same barring a few exceptions.

Yes, opinions. I admit the gameplay of AP could have been way, way better gameplaywise and the generic agent theme isn't as interesting as ME. But in AP a certain NPC can be your enemy or your friend depending on how you act, and it really shows thorough the game. Tons of dialogue choices and they aren't just good/bad.

In ME most choices practically result to nothing. Characters are just replaced with other ones, you get war asset numbers or a line changes here and there. At worst our choices are retconned.

Anyway why I mentioned AP and HR was that ME could have achieved the same choicewise. Good gameplay and story choices are not mutually exclusive.

Modifié par kalle90, 11 avril 2012 - 05:45 .