5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

"If someone gives a well thought out criticism, something that is tangible, those are the people that we try to reward as much as possible. And we want to reward them, because that feedback is how we make better games," he says. "On the opposite side, opinion that is too emotional, we won't reward that in the same way. The more you put that as your philosophy, the more you start to have a culture where people are trying to be more analytical with their feedback.

Keep that philosophy, Bioware!

Sounds iffy to me. Create an emotional response then ignore it? I bet they pay a lot of attention to people giving positive emotional response. It sounds like they want to have their cake an eat it. It's especially galling when a good chunk of the problems are emotional - whilst the plot holes and nonsensical logic are very annoying the part that really hurts is the way it treats characters I've now got an emotional connection with (and the reason I've got that connection is down to the good work they've done). To exaggerate a bit - punch a member of my family and you won't get a calm, unemotional criticism of why you shouldn't have done that from me. And the fact that you won't doesn't mean that you should ignore me. If the punch was entirely at random then the explanation is "you're scum." That's insulting but it's also true - you can't always ignore insulting terms because they sometimes describe you quite accurately.

[Seijin8]

@delta_vee: I specifically meant the genetically engineered Jurassic Park variety of Velociraptors, and not the actually extinct variety that would require a much higher O² content than Earth's atmosphere presently enjoys.... yeah, thats is *exactly* what I meant

Back to topic: As one of the people was was ready to burn EA in effigy over this... I find this article disheartening. It was easier to assume an outside force created this problem than to believe that the same people who created this series fumbled it so badly without anyone's assistance. Reorte (welcome to the thread) is right, and sometimes an act is just plain scummy with no other rationale behind it. This adds weight to the notion of BW trolling their audience - which I still don't believe, but cannot dismiss as readily anymore.

@frypan: I enjoy the MP alot, and I think a stronger integration was a missed opportunity for something really special. I was previously one of those "I hate that this has been added as a damned necessity" people, and now I play no other part of this game, and Skyrim is the only thing that occassionally tugs me away.

[edisnooM]

@frypan

My dad used to live in Perth and he said that every morning they would check their shoes, because you never knew what might have crawled in there during the night. Granted this quite a few years ago, I understand they have electricity in Australia now. :-)

Also the multiplayer is not un-fun. It is certainly diverting and cool playing as the different races, I just really wish it wasn't tied to SP.

And the micro-transactions are so completely within EA's mindset on DLC that I find it hard to believe that it's inclusion was not influenced by them at all. Though I personally don't think it ruined anything per se, since you can still obtain the items through just playing MP, and there isn't any PvP to worry about unbalance. I might find it a bit irksome, but as long as they don't force me to pay for anything I don't really have an issue with it.

[frypan]

Fair point Reorte, an emotional reaction is to be expected under the circumstances. Bioware have the unenviable task of sorting through all that to figure out the core issues. That means not dismissing folks because they act irrationally at times too - often those people still have excellent points that must be considered as much as a reasoned argument.

I agree too about the issue being Bioware just being too good at their jobs. Like a top level student, they are held to tougher standards than everyone else. Hoiseted by their own creative petards in this case.

[George-Kinsill]

@Seijin8

Don't worry, I think you still have reason to burn EA in effigy. Like the article said, BioWare is given freedom, but they MUST meet deadlines (as in produce the x amount of dollars by deadline y). March is the end of the fiscal quarter for EA, so this would probably mean this is the time at which EA looks to earn back their investment. That would mean that there is no way they would give BioWare more time to push back ME3, especially when all the pre-orders would make it pay for itself.

Also there is the matter of corporate culture. Nowadays, many companies integrity are ruined in the name of efficiency. This word appeared many times in the article. While efficiency is nice, artistic integrity should always takes precedent. Pushing a corporate culture of efficiency on art will not go well. For a good idea of what happens when companies go all into efficiency, think of efficiency consultants from the movie "Office Space."

In any case, I hope that the ME3 ending debacle has taught BioWare that delivering a good product is more important than being efficient and that the customers should be considered.

[Taboo]

Good art creates both an emotional and intellectual part. Mass Effect was able to do that before but it fell into the toilet at the end.

It was neither emotional NOR intellectual.

It was a failure and they will hopefully be rectifying it.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 09 juin 2012 - 01:20 .

[edisnooM]

@Reorte

I was still on the last page so I missed your post. That's a good point.


@Seijin8

While further integration of MP and SP could have been cool, that might have further annoyed those that don't like MP at all.

My main gripe with MP is how quickly the readiness declines, though there have been mentions that this is being looked into.

[FamilyManFirst]

Reorte wrote...

Sounds iffy to me. Create an emotional response then ignore it? I bet they pay a lot of attention to people giving positive emotional response. It sounds like they want to have their cake an eat it. It's especially galling when a good chunk of the problems are emotional - whilst the plot holes and nonsensical logic are very annoying the part that really hurts is the way it treats characters I've now got an emotional connection with (and the reason I've got that connection is down to the good work they've done). To exaggerate a bit - punch a member of my family and you won't get a calm, unemotional criticism of why you shouldn't have done that from me. And the fact that you won't doesn't mean that you should ignore me. If the punch was entirely at random then the explanation is "you're scum." That's insulting but it's also true - you can't always ignore insulting terms because they sometimes describe you quite accurately.

I'm not sure I agree, Reorte.  I think that what Mr. Kieken was trying to talk about was the difference between a post saying, "The endings all sucked!!! Bioware you are all the suxor!!!11!!" and "All [the endings] were thematically revolting ... I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face ..." (followed by an extensive, and quite erudite, explanation).  The former is an emotional outburst that doesn't help BioWare understand anything.  The latter is a passionate but lucid explanation of just exactly where BioWare went wrong.

To follow your analogy, it may be more effective to have the person who punches your family member arrested for assault rather than to punch him/her back (providing that there's no danger of further violence after the one punch).

[frypan]

The comments from Seijin8 and edisnooM pretty much sum up the MP/SP issue - it certainly sounds like fun - before the end issue I was ready to take a plunge there as well. The issue is whether it was implemented right. Seijin8 sees a missed opportunity for more, edisnooM sees it too integrated in some ways.

While I agree overall with edisnooM on this, that does not make us wholly representative and I dont want to malign the MP experience just because I dont play it. ME3 should porbably not have done it though, just because they were working on the last of a trilogy and should have respected the fact folks didnt buy the first two games on the basis of integrated MP. This is not to say they shouldnt try it again under different circumstances (but not in DA3 please - or at least tell me so I can decide if I want the game)

What is does point out is that the integration, as it was made, is divisive, and satisfying one group creates dissatisfaction in another - something any company generally tries to avoid.

The question is, how to do it right? Anybody who only wants a immersive SP experience wants no indication of MP in their game, no sign that says "here is what you missed". A MP player like Seijin8 wants exactly the oppsite - signs in the SP experience that the MP had a profound effect on their game. I can't see a way of reconciling the two approaches without creating two fundametnally different experiences.

Hang on maybe this would work? This gets back to our previous discussions about decision trees.Rather than a simple Paragon/renegade dichotomoy, why not add in certain conditions for MP based conversations and consequences.ie play a certain MP mission and it allows Shepherd a dialogue choice that opens up more MP options or MP based equipment, even MP based plot lines? These dont even have to appear for SP players.

They can also lead to events tied into the missions, in effect the Cerberus missions are played differently if you are a SP or MP player, as MP players must complete them in MP. When you get to the end, similar situations apply or even involve a co-op mission to advance to the end sequence. Goodness knows, I almost think the last level's horde mode was designed to be that initially.

I'm just adopting a scattergun approach here, and am sure folks can think of more and better ideas. It seems there could be a way to satisfy both crowds. However making the one tiny sparkle in a gloomy end be MP based is not the way.

And edisnooM - they have central power in Perth (a fine city by the way) but as a resident of Australia's southern island I have Tassie devils working on a treadmill, just so I can type this.

EDIT: Just qualified a couple of things. Sorry if I misunderstood peoples feelings on the integration issue or got names mixed up - all fixed now.

Modifié par frypan, 09 juin 2012 - 02:41 .

[frypan]

If I can add one qualifier to the above post, the key is that neither MP nor SP players should be able to say, "I played it this way and deserve a better outcome as a result". This unfortunately is what we got with the game as is. Play MP, you get a tiny custcene but with significant implications.

Possibly what might work is to craft several endings that address MP but that do not detract from the SP endings. As a quick example, both a paragon and renegade ending for pure SP play, and a different two for MP players. Just like the experience of MP vs SP, these are crafted for the enjoyment of those playstyles. Imagine if your MP ending included reference to the players who assisted you most in Co-op mode, even if it is a scene of them fighting in the background or sample VO chatter - dunno here but there are possibilities.

The key is crafting several options from the 17 different endings (ahem)  that address the variations in play, rather than to apply a proscriptive approach to non MP players. Bioware probably didnt think they were doing the latter, but that was the impression. They instead need to create a customised experience for MP along the lines of their strengths, complex storytelling. Who know, even I might give it a try?

PS: For Delta_Vee. Darks Souls, so everybody drinks. That game changed my view on MP and how it can work. The experience was simply made part of the game challenge. Some invader jumping in and offing me was no worse that what the devs did, in fact it was often done with more honour and fairness!

Modifié par frypan, 09 juin 2012 - 02:00 .

[edisnooM]

@frypan

Interesting idea about MP affecting the main game.

Also you might want to give MP a spin just to see what you think. Provided you don't encounter the issue KitaSaturnyne did where no one will let you join games. :-S

And I was the one that made the rather poor joke about power in Perth, not Seijin8. Glad to hear about the environmentally friendly (well, maybe not for the devils) power source you have though. :-)

Modifié par edisnooM, 09 juin 2012 - 02:11 .

[frypan]

Oops, sorry folks. Should check my posts before naming people.

I'm still stuck on the MP vs SP issue because it ties in so much with the ending as it was done. While "artistic integrity" has been thrown about in regards to the ending, the issue of how that relates to the MP vs SP experience is interesting.

The decision was made to kill Shepherd in all three endings, even if that created some bizarre situations such as Shpeherd advancing towards an explosion while firing a pistol. However, whether by accident or design, MP gamers could avoid this fate, changing the artistic direction and creating further logic holes ie survival in a collapsing citadel.

If I'm guessing right, an artistc decision was made regarding Shepherd's death, supposedly foreshadowed through the grimdark moments of the game. It was then subverted at the end so MP gamers recieved a unique moment. While this assumes the EMS issue regarding the end was deliberate, it suggests that the MP based decision jarred with the artistic direction the game took.

It really needed something else to work, more based on consequences and integrating the decision to pay MP into a meta-based consequence tree more consistent with the story and less exclusive for one type of player. To get back to the renegade vs paragon type dichotomy, neither of those type gamers should feel short changed by their decisions, and the same goes for MP/SP.

However, I cannot think of anything, maybe someone (Fapmaster?) has ideas for some consequence based endings that thematically tie in well for MP players or SP players seperately.

What I will say is a more general comment. As it stands, and as we see with TOR, Bioware seems to be letting the MP/MMO genre stalwarts dictate too closely their latest games. They need to focus their efforts more into crafting a MP experience based on their storytelling, dialogue and character based strengths. In particular, more carrot, less stick to make singleplayers want to play multiplayer.

Modifié par frypan, 09 juin 2012 - 02:34 .

[Seijin8]

Since the discussion of MP is up, I'm on PC and my Origin tag is that same as my forum name. I will be playing *a LOT* over this weekend. Look me up if you want a fun, non-judgmental team experience.

[QuixoticRogan]

Holy snack crackers...

Dr. Dray, your post was most appreciated for many a reason on my behalf. I have not read such stimulating literary eloquence regarding the endings debacle on the forums, ever. I'm posting to simply keep this thread going. It deserves more, but it's all I can offer.

[frypan]

@Seijin8

You know, if it weren't for my xbox AND black screen of death issues, I would take you up on the offer - just to see what the experience is like. Might shut me up on the issue too!

Still waiting on a patch there though, Hopefully we'll see something before the EC.

Modifié par frypan, 09 juin 2012 - 02:38 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Seijin8

Oh yeah, I meant to play with you. Oops!

On the topic of MP stuff affecting SP, call me whatever you want (I'm sure you have), but the whole idea seems shady to me. It's like they couldn't think of any good reason to people to play the multiplayer portion, so that's what they came up with.

As far as I'm concerned, the multiplayer aspect of Mass Effect is fine, but it should be a separate element unto itself. There's no good reason for it to affect the single player campaign, and it really shouldn't. It doesn't enrich the story, it doesn't add depth to anything presented, and the way the readiness drops when you haven't played the MP portion is just a cheap way to draw people back into it.

[Seijin8]

Well, 2 things on the MP aspect, one of which is pure opinion and the other I heard, but have no idea of the veracity of the sources...

My thought on MP as an engaging experience within the narrative would be towards the end, the push toward Earth to show that people are fighting together as a unified front. Integrated properly, it could serve as a direct illustration of Shepard's ability to unite disparate parts of the galaxy. With the right pacing and cutscenes, a few matches sprinkled within the end sequence could help to keep up the game pace and accelerate the narrative. I don't know how well it would work, but if MP and SP had to be integrated, thats the way I would opt to do it.

To use a gaming reference, this might play out like Enter the Matrix, paralleling the main narrative and adding depth to it that Shepard wouldn't see first-hand, and would otherwise be lost without an MP perspective.

Second, I have heard that the MP represents a separate game project that was cancelled and got rolled into the ME3 game, and was not originally conceived as ME3 being both. Don't know if that is true though.

Modifié par Seijin8, 09 juin 2012 - 04:11 .

[delta_vee]

On MP in general, I'm going to forgo comment. Aside from Portal 2 coop (and before that, splitscreen Borderlands and GoW with my old roommate), I haven't really played MP of the style of ME3 - the kind with horde mode and (semi-)random people and the same grind over and over again. Dark Souls' MP is a unique beast, but aside from the ever-present messages and occasional summons to help me with boss fights, I rarely avail myself of much of it. It's also so intertwined with the nature of the rest of the game that it's difficult to compare. (Also, the fact you can summon and be invaded by NPCs gives a taste of the experience even in SP, which is useful.)

Perhaps I'm an oddball (or curmudgeon) in that regard. The last competitive MP I enjoyed was Day of Defeat back in my university days (also, the last game I remember which dealt with machineguns properly - this may or may not have anything to do with it).

@Seijin8

You're not imagining things. ME3's MP was derived from a team-based MP shooter in the ME universe developed as an experiment by Bioware Montreal (or at least those who would become the core of it), at least according to Final Hours.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

delta_vee wrote...

@drayfish

Enjoy the weekend. Traitor. We shall burn you in effigy. >:]

@kennydahl

I'd agree with this...however the only way we'll see change here is by the alternating of more indie (less expensive) games with AAA's that are more guaranteed crowd pleasers. That way you spread out the risk of your new, creative, output with more of a sure bet.

That sounds to me like a very Hollywood model, at least for the top-end directors and their associated infrastructure. Christopher Nolan's movies follow that pattern quite closely (with the exception of Inception, which didn't make Batman money, but certainly paid for itself quite handsomely). The more sustainable model seems to me to be the mid-level, smaller-budget, more niche films, which are never blockbusters but never cost that much to begin with - and here I'll draw the comparison to the better-funded end of the indie spectrum and the smaller side of the AAA scene (think From Software and Dark Souls, or whatever Mojang is turning into post-Minecraft). This is the area Bioware comes from, and I suspect it's part of the reason some portions of the fanbase believe they've sold out or forgotten their core fans (I don't necessarily agree, but I would say the transition has been...rocky).

Unless you as a company have massive capital stockpiles or an ongoing seperate cashcow revenue source, you probably need the security of a 'known' thing if you're doing triple A titles. If the artistic gamble goes wrong...that can be everyone's job on the line...

With DA2's failure, ME3's whatever-this-is, and SW:TOR bleeding subscribers, I think they're feeling something of a pinch right now.

I'm an E3 zombie, but I wanted to pop in and confirm that I'm not dead yet (and that I have the first third of at least three no-longer-topical posts in various browser windows, casualties of me being several days behind the thread for the last week.).

Some industry thinks:

The secret of the game industry is that nobody knows anything, ever. Nobody knows how to keep making a consistent profit. Nobody knows how to ensure survival.

Mid-list niche titles are no guarantee either. I spent some time the last couple days hanging out with a few supremely talented devs who have done mid-list niche products that failed or lauched to universal "mehs"  If you make a game for a million dollars, and that game doesn't make a million dollars back, you're just as screwed (or more screwed) as if you made a sixty million dollar game that doesn't make sixty million dollars back. Hell, if it's a sixty million dollar game that fails, at least people will have heard of it when you put it on your resume.

I've also been wanting to say something for a while about the whole "EA is monsters who have their hands in everything and are screwing it up" idea that is so damn persistent on the forums, but I haven't had a good jumping-in point for that discussion prior to this article. Now I do.

The "EA comes in and says 'make this much money and we're cool" thing is something that actually happens a lot these days. The thing is, that dollar amount is usually... pretty much what a studio would have to be pulling in to attract outside investors. (I'll hopefully be back with a more detailed discussion of this later, but a friend just texted me to come drinking, so I'm finishing this thought and heading out.) 

This is why I am all for day1 DLC, microtansactions, project  ten dollar, whatever. I'm all for anything that lets me "vote" for a game I love in the way that counts the most: with money. For ME2, I bought outfit packs for characters I practically never used. I bought weapons packs I knew I would probably never touch. Every time there was a steam sale, I'd spend 50-100 dollars buying copies of ME1&2 for friends.

Let's look at the always reviled "day one DLC." Look at, say, Mass Effect and Mirror's edge. Both are $60 at launch, console titles, published by EA. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Mass Effect is worth more than Mirror's Edge. But because of pricing conventions, you can't say "OK, sprawling 50 hour RPG: $100; Six Hour action platformer: $40." That's not how pricing works, for reasons that are complicated. So you do some Day1 DLC, make it come with the CE, and people who like your game enough to think it's worth $70 rather than $60 will hopefully pay that,  while the dude who is just going into the store to find a round thing to put in his shooty machine isn't put off by the $10 price difference.

More later. Miss you guys. Don't worry, my orphaned postlets will probably fully develop later, and will be rolled out when you least expect 'em.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 juin 2012 - 04:44 .

[Jorji Costava]

Reaching back a bit here. . .

@delta_vee

Ashamed to say I haven't yet read Extra Lives, but I've heard quite a few good things about it. My initial exposure to Bissell was on Grantland, which I was led to because I was already a regular listener to the BS Report. But from the stuff I've read of his, I completely agree with you that his writing on gaming is some of the best out there.

Also, the link about EA was very interesting. I had always reflexively assumed that a lot of the changes to the ME series over time (especially the transition to a more comic book art style in ME2) were attributable to EA, so it challenged some of my preconceptions to find out that perhaps this wasn't the case after all.

@Seijin8

Here's a link on the multiplayer stuff. I think it's mostly reliable, but I could be wrong about this.

kotaku.com/5893424/there-was-going-to-be-a-mass-effect-first-person-shooter/

About multiplayer, I don't have anything of particular interest to add. It's probably safe to say that I am one of the least skilled gamer here; my reflexes in particular are truly horrific, and my hand-eye coordination isn't that great either (this is part of what attracted me to RPG-type games to begin with). So my experiences with any kind of multiplayer in any game have not been very good, leaving me with an irrational bias against multiplayer. I don't mind its inclusion, but I personally wouldn't want to make it tied to singleplayer. I say it's about high time that developers cater to my demographic: incompetent folks.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Multiplayer was planned as far back as Mass Effect 1. It was going to involve players trading items amongst each other. As delta_vee said, it was BioWare Montreal that put together a multiplayer Mass Effect game as an experiment, after the release of ME2. This made them realize that they could put something together (finally?) for ME3.

From what I saw, it looked good, but really amounted to little more than Halo: Reach with Mass Effect skins.

[edisnooM]

@CulturalGeekGirl

For me I'm not willing to just "give" my money to any game company. I'm not made of money, I have all the fun expenses that come with being an adult, so if a company, any company, wants my money they need to prove that it's worth it.

I consider myself supporting or voting for the game and company by buying the game, as well as worthwhile additional content they might produce for the game.

I pre-ordered ME2 & 3, even got the CE with 3, I bought all the mission based DLCs, Kasumi and Arrival were a bit short, but Overlord and LotSB were both fantastic. But with things like the character outfits, if you like them that's fine, but for me they hold very little value.

I don't really care about day one DLC as long as it doesn't affect my game not having it, however with things like From Ashes, it was removed supposedly due to time constraints, but was still able to be finished, integrated, and launched with the main game, even having a Javik stand in at the final Shepard pep talk if you don't buy it? That seems kind of sketchy to me. Not to mention it's a Prothean, the race we've been wanting to know more about since ME1. If ME3 is your first game in the series you might not care, but if you've played the other games chances are you'll want Javik.

Now I got the CE so it didn't really affect me, but for those that couldn't get the CE or couldn't afford it, they kind of get the short end of the stick.

Then there's the whole issue with Online Passes etc, which are little more than jabs at people who buy used games, again perhaps because they cannot afford a full priced game. It's like if you bought a used book but didn't get one of the chapters unless you paid an extra 10 dollars. They already made their money off producing and selling that product, but now it seems like they want to get paid twice.

I understand that companies need to make money, and things aren't getting any cheaper for anyone, but I think there are ways to make money without seemingly poking your customer base with a "pointed stick" (Eric Idle voice).

Edit:
Also I hope this doesn't sound too confrontational, I'm not trying to decry what you said, just offering up my opinion. 

Modifié par edisnooM, 09 juin 2012 - 06:04 .

[Fapmaster5000]

frypan wrote...

However, I cannot think of anything, maybe someone (Fapmaster?) has ideas for some consequence based endings that thematically tie in well for MP players or SP players seperately. 

 

*BAMF!* *smokecloud*

You summoned me?



In all seriousness, though, your post does highlight some of the inherent problems in the MP/SP integration on ME3.  As several others have since stated (thanks for the link Osbornep!), mutliplayer was originally a seperate project that got rolled into ME3 before launch.  With that in mind, let's look at what ME3 MP is.

It's a fun (imho) little horde-mode shooter great for grinding, killing time, and goofing off.  I has no plot, no real heavy structure, just some modular mini-objectives, box arenas, and basic enemies.  No scripting, no world-building, no character... just some dudes who need killing and a lot of tools to do so.  It's a lot of fun, it takes comparatively much less work than, say, ME3 SP campaign, and generates beaucoup money through the CCG gambling packs.

It is also important to consider why this exists.  In light of the interview linked earlier in the thread, about EA providing "X dollars" and demanding "Y profit", the multiplayer could be this missing link.  Maybe Bioware really wants to build more epic campaigns, and needs a quick, reliable, low maintenance money-fountain (much like the director who rotates between blockbusters to make bank, and indie movies to make art, as discussed above).  Multiplayer could be this engine, powering the Bioware chassis, or it could simply be a cold-hearted cash grab, or even just a "cool little thing" Bioware through into ME3 since it was already largely built, but then grew into more.  What it is not is an integrated SP/MP platform.  

Multiplayer, in ME3 as it stands, cannot be used to build thematic endings for SP, since it has no themes.  It has no plot, no character, no structure beyond the arena.  The onyl thing it can contribute is stats (chosen to be expressed as EMS) or bonus unlocks (not taken).  Similarly, it is freed of single player, and recieves only a cursory appearance in the form of standalone missions in the arenas, disguised as single player adventures.

With this in mind, the only way the MP can effect the ending is through relatively crude "success points" (EMS) sent over to represent how well the galaxy is fighting.  The more these points matter, the more it risks enraging the SP-only crowd, and these points will never matter to the MP only crowd.

However, with all that in mind, if Bioware intended to construct a game similar to Mass Effect, with a multiplayer similar to Mass Effect, but have thematic impact, it would probably function something like this: 



PROJECT UNITY
Goal: To produce a unified Mass Effect experience, with minimal changes to gameplay modes, that create a unified SP/MP experience.


Multiplayer Dependancies on Single Player:

• Starting out, the Multiplayer options would be limitted to only Alliance soldiers, as humanity stands alone against the Reapers.  As Shepard aids allies, these units become unlocked in Multiplayer  (IE: Turians and Krogans after Tuchanka (Salarians only if renegade path), Asari and Salarians (if not unlocked earlier) after council saved, Quarians and/or Geth after Rannoch (only surving species unlocked), Vorcha after Aria's sidequest, Batarians after sidequest, and Cerberus defectors after Sanctuary).
• Arenas would only unlock as Shepard completed N7 missions in Single Player.  (IE: Fire Base White after Shepard completes the SP mission in FBW, et cetera.)

Single Player Dependancies on Multiplayer

• Bonus EMS (much lower than current).
• Special Weapon unlocks shipped in from "allies on the front line" to Shepard in singleplayer.  (IE: Late release weapons like the Kishock or Harrier would be brought over into Single Player once unlocked in multiplayer.)
• Special Side Missions

The missions are the key, the meat, of this proposal; they are also the money pit, requiring larger amounts of developement than currently given to the MP portions.  However, as this is theoretically dealing with "what would be required to make a unified thematic statement from MP to SP", this constraint will be removed.

Several new characters would be created.  Since this is me, I'll go ahead and just write in some "Fapmaster" style characters in the ME3 brand.  

NEW MISSION!  "Old Soldiers"
Unlocked after successfully extracting from Silver with any Alliance Character.

Starting out, there would be a new N7 soldier that Shepard would meet in Single Player.  Let's call him Schaeffer.  Schaeffer is a veteran N7 commando, a Tier One operator who's done lots of time in the Alliance's dirty tricks division.  He's got a grudge against aliens as an overall objection, but has yet to meet many he doesn't personally like or respect.  He's arrogant, he's cold, but he's a damn good soldier who's been doing the bad things that need done for years.  He was approaching the end of his time when the Reapers (who he never believed in) hit.  Now, he's been tapped to lead an "N7 Team" who does not qualify as N7, to fight battles that even N7 couldn't handle, and do it all with confience.  He's leading green soldiers (kids, really) into fights that he's seen kill his friends (who were far better soldiers than this lot), and he knows he has to do it alone, since the Alliance stands alone.

After patching together a militia unit on Terra Nova after the Sixth Fleet retreated, Schaeffer led his patchwork unit to punch through Reaper forces from the polar cities, fleeing into the desert, eventually "acquiring" an "abandoned" smuggler ship to evacuate several hundred people.  Now, the grim soldier a hero, he and his unit were formed into the new N7 corps and hurled against the Reapers.

The first time Shepard comes to the Citadel, Schaeffer is waiting.  As a fellow N7, Schaeffer needs the intrepid Commander's help to build up this new coprs.  Schaeffer is bitter and cynical ("realistic" as he says) about their chances, declaring that these kids are being fed into the grinder, with equipment scavenged from Planetary Defense Forces and sporting shops.  This is no way to win the war, and Schaeffer knows that they've been lucky thus far, but if they're going to at least "die usefully", they'll need someone to put pressure on some unsavory characters to make several crates of military hardware (and preferrably an armored vehicle or seven) to fall off a transport.  Schaeffer hopes that Shepard is that person, and attempts to use their shared experiences to win over the Commander. 

Shepard can build up Schaeffer (paragon) or agree that the new "N7"s are abolutely f*cked, but needed anyway (renegade).  If he/she choses to help, this starts a quick mission on the Citadel to slide illicit weapons to Schaeffer's old soldier network and eventually to the front line.  Sure, some bad people make money, or some heads might roll, but this is a war that must be won. 

NEW MISSION!  "Honor by the Kiloton"
Unlocked after successfully extracting with a Turian character from Firebase Condor.

The Turian Hierarchy is planning a massive vengeance strike on their own homeworld, an as yet classified operation to break the Reaper stranglehold, if only for a moment, and gain a fighting chance.  Lieutenant Tollinius of the Blackwatch has been dispatched from his fighting position on Menae to rendezvous with agents of the Blue Suns mercenary band.  Tollinius knows that the operation to retake Palaven is a fool's errand (the Reapers cannot be defeated by the forces marshalled), but he a Turian soldier, and he will do what he is ordered to do.  A proud and honorable officer, he chafes at being ordered to leave his men behind, only days before they will return to Palaven's surface (they've inserted and retreated twice before, each time losing nearly half the unit, to recover intel) for the final strike.  His men will go, and die, without him, while he bargains with criminals and slavers to acquire weapons that the Hierarchy can no longer acquire for itself.

Under complete secrecy, he has been dispatched to cut a deal with a loose affiliation of Blue Suns mercenaries and Sonax Industries "contractors" to acquire "modified" nuclear mining charges.  He needs these, quickly, under the table, so that he can rush them back to Palaven for the operation, but every inch of this chafes him.  He is selling state secrets and the master templates to crucial hardware to the lowest scum in the galaxy, in return for weapons that his unit would have been hunting down with prejudice, only weeks before.  The mercs and contractors are rubbing his face in it, and the price of the latest acquisition might be too high.

Tollinius approached Shepard on reputation (and Garrus's reputation) alone, letting the commader know that the price the dealers are asking is to let a few shipments of refugees get "redirected" to locations the Blue Suns prefer (slavery and war profiteering, lol).  The Hierarchy is letting this slide because of the lives on the line, and Tollinius is ordered to make the deal.  By his honor, he must follow orders and not shut this down, but by his honor, he cannot let this stand, so he "mentions in passing" a few key details, transit plans, and ship codes.

Shepard can step in to stop the deal, allow it to proceed, or attempt to circumvent the deal, either by stealing the refugee ships back after the deal is made (oh, look, the Normandy is a pirate ship today!), or by coordinating with C-Sec to blow the deal, confiscate the nukes, and wrap up the situation.  War is never clean.


NEW MISSION!  "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"
Unlocked after playing as a Quarian character for more than X hours, with a total score of Y or higher, and only if the Quarians were not killed after Rannoch.

Athi'Sarra vas Tahlen is a Quarian systems analyst who, according to public records, once worked for Admiral Xen.  More importantly, she is part of Fleet Strike, Task Force Drasi, a special purpose network security team that was attached to marine strike units for deep penetration missions against hardened Geth targets.  TF-D drew from the best and brightest computer specialists in the fleet, put them through ardous training (making them near-commandos, themselves), and deployed in order to neutralize Geth systems from the inside.  The unit's history is filled with last stands (including the teams that stayed behind in the Morning War to disable Planetary Defense Cannons while the fleet escaped as their "spiritual founders"), but Athi does not intend on dying quite yet.

The hacker has come up with a plan to spread the effectiveness of Admiral Xen's "synthetic flashbang" from beyond the Geth into the Reapers themselves, using pieces of the Reaper code recovered from the Geth Consensus and mainframes.  With an audacious (and techno-babble) filled explanation, she demonstrates the theory of hijacking the Reaper command signal ("commonly called 'Indoctrination'") and jamming it with white noise and junk data in a locallized area.  The Reapers can't be hacked, but they are synthetic, and can be spoofed.

Unfortunately, while this idea has promise, it would require access to the Cerberus experiments on Indoctrination.  Shepard may find this unpleasant, but Athi makes an impassioned plea that the lives already lost to Cerberus not be wasted, and that many more can be saved, with her plans.  She argues that there is little lost from jamming, and no more horrors need be inflicted, but if something good could come from a death, then that death is less terrible.  Task Force Drasi understands this well.

If Shepard agrees to this plan, then the new jammer will require research be recovered from an active Cerberus site, and the Commander will have to do what he/she does best, and hope that history will judge him/her kindly for what's she's gotten involved in.  Sometimes in war, there is only the lesser of evils.


MORE MISSIONS WOULD FOLLOW.


Anywho, these could be inserted throughout the game.  A Mass Effect Team Rainbow could be constructed from the various races Shepard unites (each with a representative with a mission) who would recur throughout the game, eventually joining you on Earth, where Schaeffer would comment on how "never thought I'd be sitting here on Earth, waiting for the Krogan to come bail my ass out", and the united team provides support for Shepard during the push to the Citadel, and gets a finale scene to themselves, where the player can learn what happened to this particular N7 team, to Schaeffer, Tollinius, Athi'Sarra, Platform Designate "Roland", Fiya Rusani, Battlemaster Korsch, and Stubbs the Batarian.

So, yeah, that's how I would do it.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 09 juin 2012 - 06:50 .

[delta_vee]

@Fapmaster5000

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

[edisnooM]

@Fapmaster5000, delta_vee

Agreed. How soon can we expect this in game. :-)