5087 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

As to indoctrination as theory or fact within the game, it was one ending that was considered by the writers. They may have left tidbits of it around because they intended to revisit it or just couldn't afford to re-do areas that featured the tidbits.

Consider that Shepard actually almost always is surrounded by, at the very least, reaper inspired tech. And, indoctrination needn't be something that occurs because someone created an object and waved a magic wand over it, thus invoking the voodoo of indoctrination. It could be an intrinsic property of any object created using reaper design or reaper inspired designs. The Normandy is just such an object as are the mass relays and the Citadel itself. Anything once ascribed to the Protheans is of dubious origin. Javik can only attest to them having scientists, but he does not know what if anything these scientists ever came up with that was an original idea. So, the probability exists that anything Prothean was at least inspired by whoever created the reapers and at worst, wholesale reaper tech.

Weapons, ships, computers, even the stuff within Shepard at the very least are things foreshadowed by reaper knowledge. As to why Shepard seems more slowly susceptible to the effects and the effects are visited upon him/her differently than others can be explained away by events that took place very early on in ME1. Shepard is already different from others. Some spark in evolution allowed him/her to do what few others could do - see unscrambled images from the beacon. The beacon itself could be suspect. And then there's the Cipher, transferred directly to Shepard's mind.

Another thing to note is that Shepard spends the most time of anyone around actual organics corrupted and taken over by the reapers. What does all that time spent with husks, marauders, banshees, and so on, do?

IT is an interesting and compelling concept. Unfortunately, I think it needed to be more fleshed out and not some slow-building snowball that fizzled out somewhere along the line. Many can see and make sense of the idea that everyone that tried to directly affect the reapers became indoctrinated. Most tried to control them, but that's beside the point.

I'm not an IT adherent. I just find it an interesting concept.

[delta_vee]

@Hawk227:

I would say the dissociative nature of the ending was what got the balls rolling on IT, and I'd add that most IT believers only like the endings in the context of IT.

I'm an avowed atheist, so I'm not one for faith either. There's no doubt that faith plays a role (mostly faith in BW), but IT is not simply a post-facto theory built solely around faith. There is a huge swath of (largely circumstantial) evidence, and a broadly understood idea of how it fits into the narrative and how it is foreshadowed. It is very much possible these were all oversights and coincidences, but that is a lot of oversights and coincidences. Especially considering IT manages to explain most of those mind-boggling decisions, whether you think it was (hypothetically) executed well enough or not.

When I call IT post-facto, I mean primarily that the theory was constructed after the fact, instead of before or during. IT is, foundationally, an attempt to place the endings in a context better-suited to integration with the rest of the story - and the method of accomplishing this is post-facto analysis, instead of the natural evolution of the player's perspective. (Whether this is due to abandonment of the idea or its nonexistence is both unknowable without additional information and frankly irrelevant to the text as it stands.) I understand the impulse, truly I do. But it requires a belief that the endings can be integrated, can be wrestled into submission like Jacob and the angel.

But as it stands, I see IT as a break with the text as egregious in its own way as the intended conventional interpretation. Mass Effect has never been an elliptical text. All the information required to understand its events and interact with its systems has been explicit somehere, somehow, somewhen. As a series, it has never relied on oblique references or outside contexts for its narrative. To change the nature of its interaction with its audience at its very crux is a betrayal more fundamental than its revolting thematic shift.

IT is a means of literalizing the symbolic, rationalizing the impressionistic. It's fascinating, but to me it seems to be overeager pattern-matching, and nothing more.

I've said in response to others (and maybe even you?) that I thought the ideal time for a "The Truth" type DLC would be.... last week. I have no real sense of how much time is required to make the type of DLC required for this reveal (I imagine a LotSB size), but the fact we must wait until summer does not bode well.

That was to me, yes. And I think you're off by at least a month. If IT were in play, it would have been announced in place of the Extended Cut. The jig was up, and the public scorn heaped upon Bioware was enough to crack any secret-hoarding executive.

I've also said, and I'm sure you'd object, that I can invision the dev team thinking narrative completion wasn't really necessary. [...] It just strikes me as a less severe miscalculation than what we got.

It strikes me as a more severe miscalculation, as it would involve a failure of game design in addition to narrative.

You keep referencing behind the scenes stuff that I've not heard before. You've stated the ending was saved until the very end, but I'd seen from several sources that it was written (or at least outlined) early in production. The leaked script (with Javik as the catalyst) seems to support this. Now you say the Citadel coup was meant to come much later. Where is this coming from?

A combination of the leaked script and the Final Hours app. And the while the three-pronged choice of doom was present for some time, actual production on the endgame was left perilously late. Martin Sheen was doing voicework in late November - near the original release date.

Final Hours has a wealth of information about late-game revisions, including moving Javik out of the main game and references to a sequence (either cut or never produced) explaining that the Crucible would cause a "galactic dark age" - which would be considered important information vis-a-vis the thematic intent of the ending. If you haven't picked up the app, please do - not just for this discussion, but because it's well-done, and Geoff Keighley (the author) is going to be adding a free update to address the ending controversy (presumably once EC is released).

The leaked script surfaced in November, as well, although dating the script itself is difficult. Given how far along production was, there wasn't a lot that changed, but the Citadel coup was substantially different in the final game compared to the leak's version.

For a series that generally did a very good job with character development, the Kaidan/Ashley thing always bugged me. [...] Considering how brilliant Mordin, Tali, Wrex, and Garrus all were, it was odd that Kaidan/Ashley were so contrastingly boring and abrasive. Maybe Mac wrote them.

There's a whole clutch of missed opportunities, and making Ashley/Kaidan better (and different from each other) is high on the list.

Modifié par delta_vee, 03 mai 2012 - 06:04 .

[Pattonesque]

delta_vee wrote...

There's a whole clutch of missed opportunities, and making Ashley/Kaidan better (and different from each other) is high on the list.

It seemed very odd to me that Ashley and Kaidan clam up once they're on the Normandy. Ashley's Normandy time is probably the strangest bit in the game. She doesn't interact with any other crew members, only has one or two autodialogue conversations, and doesn't even leave her room. The only thing she does do is get drunk offscreen with Vega. She goes from one of the series' most morally complex characters to a reclusive, near-mute binge drinker. Just one or two instances of her, say, hanging out with Garrus while being a Space Racist or a Reformed Space Racist, or the deleted scene in which she talks with Shepard about the afterlife would have gone a long way.

[delta_vee]

Pattonesque wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

There's a whole clutch of missed opportunities, and making Ashley/Kaidan better (and different from each other) is high on the list.

It seemed very odd to me that Ashley and Kaidan clam up once they're on the Normandy. Ashley's Normandy time is probably the strangest bit in the game. She doesn't interact with any other crew members, only has one or two autodialogue conversations, and doesn't even leave her room. The only thing she does do is get drunk offscreen with Vega. She goes from one of the series' most morally complex characters to a reclusive, near-mute binge drinker. Just one or two instances of her, say, hanging out with Garrus while being a Space Racist or a Reformed Space Racist, or the deleted scene in which she talks with Shepard about the afterlife would have gone a long way.

I never got her drunk scene. I sent her off to Hackett after graciously declining to shoot her in the face.

[edisnooM]

delta_vee wrote...

Pattonesque wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

There's a whole clutch of missed opportunities, and making Ashley/Kaidan better (and different from each other) is high on the list.

It seemed very odd to me that Ashley and Kaidan clam up once they're on the Normandy. Ashley's Normandy time is probably the strangest bit in the game. She doesn't interact with any other crew members, only has one or two autodialogue conversations, and doesn't even leave her room. The only thing she does do is get drunk offscreen with Vega. She goes from one of the series' most morally complex characters to a reclusive, near-mute binge drinker. Just one or two instances of her, say, hanging out with Garrus while being a Space Racist or a Reformed Space Racist, or the deleted scene in which she talks with Shepard about the afterlife would have gone a long way.

I never got her drunk scene. I sent her off to Hackett after graciously declining to shoot her in the face.

There's also the odd bug where some conversations in the Engine Room are somehow tied to Ashley, and apparently if you have Kaidan you don't get them. Not sure what happens if you send her to Hackett.

[delta_vee]

edisnooM wrote...

There's also the odd bug where some conversations in the Engine Room are somehow tied to Ashley, and apparently if you have Kaidan you don't get them. Not sure what happens if you send her to Hackett.

You don't get them, AFAICT. At least, I didn't.

[edisnooM]

delta_vee wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

There's also the odd bug where some conversations in the Engine Room are somehow tied to Ashley, and apparently if you have Kaidan you don't get them. Not sure what happens if you send her to Hackett.

You don't get them, AFAICT. At least, I didn't.

Thats too bad, Tali had some interesting dialogue with Garrus and EDI, and Donnelly and Daniels are always diverting. Nothing world shattering but it's annoying when content is blocked off like that.

[KitaSaturnyne]

ShatterSh0t wrote...

Rebuilding the Mass Relays is pointless because, as you said, the relays link 2 points directly.  If one was built in the Sol system.... well where the heck would it send everyone?

for laughs, straight to the Omega relay.

Also, lets not forget the derelict reaper.  It was able to indoctrinate the crew that recovered it.

True, but wasn't it found that the Reaper was just inert from heavy damage and not actually dead?

[Keyrlis]

delta_vee wrote...


Final Hours has a wealth of information about late-game revisions, including moving Javik out of the main game and references to a sequence (either cut or never produced) explaining that the Crucible would cause a "galactic dark age" - which would be considered important information vis-a-vis the thematic intent of the ending. If you haven't picked up the app, please do - not just for this discussion, but because it's well-done, and Geoff Keighley (the author) is going to be adding a free update to address the ending controversy (presumably once EC is released).

All parts in bold sound suspiciously JUST like the marketing approach for the ending.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not paying money for another "lots of speculation for everybody" crap app.

The claim that they moved Javik out of the "main game" and into Day 1 DLC only proves the company's intentional misleading comments such as Casey Hudson's statement, "On [Mass Effect 3], content creators completed the game in January and moved onto the From Ashes DLC", and Mike Gamble's claim, "Mass Effect 3 is a complete –- and a huge game — right out of the box. The content in From Ashes
was developed by a separate team (after the core game was finished) and
not completed until well after the main game went into certification."

While they may have used a gold napkin to polish those vocal turds into technically PR-correct doublespeak,
I DO NOT LOVE BIG BIOWARE.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@delta_vee, Dray, etc.

Is there a link to someplace where you deconstruct or critique the narratives of the games scene by scene? The reason I ask is that I have played through ME and ME2 a bunch of times (second time playing ME3 right now) and enjoyed the story every time. I didn't find anything offensive on a narrative level, and didn't feel the need to shoot Kaiden in the head in ME3 when I met up with him again because his character didn't match up. In fact, I welcomed an old friend with open arms.

Am I really so mindless? Too emotional and not logical enough? Too accepting of circumstances? Even after reading your arguments, I guess I'm just really asking for evidence so I can have a clearer picture of what makes the narrative of the games so faulty. I've enjoyed them thoroughly every time I've played. Even ME3's, despite the ending that changes narrative gears completely and doesn't even so much as explain the consequences of your actions, which has been a major theme throughout all three games.

[SkaldFish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Goddamit, I do not have time to write an essay about all the different ways that narrative design departments can be structured in the game industry. Guys, stop making me want to write long essays about things.

In short: the job of "guy who makes sure it all fits together" does exist, in various varieties, throughout the industry. What kind of a job it should be, who should do it, and how they should do it are all either hotly debated or completely ignored.

LOL - well, to be fair, it's no different in software development. I'm expressing conclusions based on my experience, but I can assure you that I would have no trouble finding another architect ready and willing to tell me that their approach makes more sense.

Software development is still a very immature field, and game development is an even more recent subdomain. I'm just saying that the patterns and practices used in process-oriented software development are startlingly applicable to development of games like the ME series, and that an analysis of the trilogy in that light indicates that some of those practices might have encouraged checks (early in the development cycle) that would have reduced the risk of such egregious narrative oversights.

[delta_vee]

Keyrlis wrote...

All parts in bold sound suspiciously JUST like the marketing approach for the ending.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not paying money for another "lots of speculation for everybody" crap app.

The claim that they moved Javik out of the "main game" and into Day 1 DLC only proves the company's intentional misleading comments such as Casey Hudson's statement, "On [Mass Effect 3], content creators completed the game in January and moved onto the From Ashes DLC", and Mike Gamble's claim, "Mass Effect 3 is a complete –- and a huge game — right out of the box. The content in From Ashes
was developed by a separate team (after the core game was finished) and
not completed until well after the main game went into certification."

While they may have used a gold napkin to polish those vocal turds into technically PR-correct doublespeak,
I DO NOT LOVE BIG BIOWARE.

I'm going to be clear, and I'll try not to sound dickish, but don't spit fire without checking your targets first.

This app is published solely by Geoff Keighley. It is not a Bioware product in any way. Keighley did the same thing with Valve for Portal 2. The app is all of three bucks.

EDIT: Also, the app is actually where we got the whole "lots of speculation from everybody" line.

Modifié par delta_vee, 03 mai 2012 - 09:00 .

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@delta_vee, Dray, etc.

Is there a link to someplace where you deconstruct or critique the narratives of the games scene by scene? The reason I ask is that I have played through ME and ME2 a bunch of times (second time playing ME3 right now) and enjoyed the story every time. I didn't find anything offensive on a narrative level, and didn't feel the need to shoot Kaiden in the head in ME3 when I met up with him again because his character didn't match up. In fact, I welcomed an old friend with open arms.

Am I really so mindless? Too emotional and not logical enough? Too accepting of circumstances? Even after reading your arguments, I guess I'm just really asking for evidence so I can have a clearer picture of what makes the narrative of the games so faulty. I've enjoyed them thoroughly every time I've played. Even ME3's, despite the ending that changes narrative gears completely and doesn't even so much as explain the consequences of your actions, which has been a major theme throughout all three games.

I'm halfway tempted, but it's a long series, and I'm not sure I want to spend quite that much time tearing something I used to love and still kind of like to shreds.

You're not wrong at all to enjoy the games. I'm not one of those people who holds others in contempt for their tastes. I enjoyed myself too while playing them - it's only once ME3 was over that I started taking a longer look at the overall construction and didn't like much of what I saw. That's not saying you have to agree with me or see it my way, nor am I trying to imply that your subjective experience is somehow less sophisticated.

Personally, I find ME to be highly...what's the word...experiential? It works far better while you're immersed in it than it does upon later examination, and it gets away with things that you're willing to overlook because you want to see the next part.

[uwyz]

delta_vee wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@delta_vee, Dray, etc.

Is there a link to someplace where you deconstruct or critique the narratives of the games scene by scene? The reason I ask is that I have played through ME and ME2 a bunch of times (second time playing ME3 right now) and enjoyed the story every time. I didn't find anything offensive on a narrative level, and didn't feel the need to shoot Kaiden in the head in ME3 when I met up with him again because his character didn't match up. In fact, I welcomed an old friend with open arms.

Am I really so mindless? Too emotional and not logical enough? Too accepting of circumstances? Even after reading your arguments, I guess I'm just really asking for evidence so I can have a clearer picture of what makes the narrative of the games so faulty. I've enjoyed them thoroughly every time I've played. Even ME3's, despite the ending that changes narrative gears completely and doesn't even so much as explain the consequences of your actions, which has been a major theme throughout all three games.

I'm halfway tempted, but it's a long series, and I'm not sure I want to spend quite that much time tearing something I used to love and still kind of like to shreds.

You're not wrong at all to enjoy the games. I'm not one of those people who holds others in contempt for their tastes. I enjoyed myself too while playing them - it's only once ME3 was over that I started taking a longer look at the overall construction and didn't like much of what I saw. That's not saying you have to agree with me or see it my way, nor am I trying to imply that your subjective experience is somehow less sophisticated.

Personally, I find ME to be highly...what's the word...experiential? It works far better while you're immersed in it than it does upon later examination, and it gets away with things that you're willing to overlook because you want to see the next part.

You can start by reading this humorous thread here: http://social.biowar.../index/10592397 - it is a compilation of the many plot holes in the ME series. The ending was the culmination of all these plot holes.

[KitaSaturnyne]

delta_vee wrote...

I'm halfway tempted, but it's a long series, and I'm not sure I want to spend quite that much time tearing something I used to love and still kind of like to shreds.

I'd love to tempt you the other half of the way. I'm really interested to hear others' thoughts and analyses on the matter.

uwyz wrote...

You can start by reading this humorous thread here: http://social.biowar.../index/10592397 - it is a compilation of the many plot holes in the ME series. The ending was the culmination of all these plot holes.

Ah yes, I read that thread. It's really funny and I still like the "Carrot of Protection" thing. I still want that to be an RPG item in some game.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

That's the secret that writers don't want to tell you: as long as a thing is thematically cohesive, the seams don't show.  Until it breaks your investment, you'll let 'em get away with murder.

This number from the Muppet Show is more appropriate to this situation than I was prepared for.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 10:05 .

[3DandBeyond]

As to the whole artistic expression debate, I would say that art can exist somewhere between David Lynch and George Lucas. It's up to the beholder of course to decide what is art. But one of these creates or created things that can be consumed and appreciated by a huge audience. And the happy feeling one is left with the original Star Wars is in my opinion, way more authentic than the what the heck attitude I have always had when watching anything David Lynch has made, not to knock him specifically. But, I could spend an eternity trying to determine the meaning of some little people running around in Mulholland Drive and still only come up with the notion that the one character is just crazy and the other is on the way there. I don't care and don't want to decipher it at all.

You would think for these 2 companies, the obvious would be natural. One company creates games based upon one of the biggest theatrical phenomena of the past 30plus years and the other company creates games based upon some of the biggest athletic pursuits that have ever existed and they are all in one company.

The fact that Bioware has had great success basing games off of Star Wars really should tell them something. Star Wars had some dark overtones-never developed as deeply as other movies or stories, but they were there. But, George Lucas saw the real potential in creating something that was uplifting. It is art as well. The little touches he made sure were put into the games (dirty armor and such) became a standard after.

Video games are just as important today as movies, tv, radio, and pulp fiction were in their day. It's especially important sometimes to see that art can uplift. I think many of us see that there are times when art needs to uplift. It doesn't make it less artistic.

[KitaSaturnyne]

The progression of the series really speaks to EA's homogenization of the game industry, I think.

In Mass Effect 1, we got a game where the creators were able to explore their story and universe, and gameplay was almost secondary. It truly was a space opera, where we were taken places by the narrative, made to care about these people, and be there with them as they rose against the conflicts.

In Mass Effect 2, we've still got a lot of great story elements, but it felt more like the space opera was becoming an action movie in the name of appealing to a larger audience (ie selling more copies). We still had our characters and story, but the parts where you shoot and kill stuff was starting to become more important.

In Mass Effect 3, it was a straight up action film from beginning to end, with scenes and musical cues designed more to manipulate you into an emotional response rather than presenting you with a narrative that earned those responses from you. I feel like this game was more the product of a "Gears of Modern Warfare" age, where EA didn't want a game that had a gripping, emotional story, they wanted a product that would make them a lot of money. Hence, the multiplayer. Because everyone wants to shoot stuff online, and everyone bought the first two ME games for the multiplayer, right?

My latest thoughts.

[eventhewaves]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This number from the Muppet Show is more appropriate to this situation than I was prepared for.

It's a little depressing just how many songs from Chicago remain eternally applicable, really... especially to this kind of context.

Modifié par eventhewaves, 03 mai 2012 - 10:28 .

[Keyrlis]

delta_vee wrote...

Keyrlis wrote...

All parts in bold sound suspiciously JUST like the marketing approach for the ending.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not paying money for another "lots of speculation for everybody" crap app.

The claim that they moved Javik out of the "main game" and into Day 1 DLC only proves the company's intentional misleading comments such as Casey Hudson's statement, "On [Mass Effect 3], content creators completed the game in January and moved onto the From Ashes DLC", and Mike Gamble's claim, "Mass Effect 3 is a complete –- and a huge game — right out of the box. The content in From Ashes
was developed by a separate team (after the core game was finished) and
not completed until well after the main game went into certification."

While they may have used a gold napkin to polish those vocal turds into technically PR-correct doublespeak,
I DO NOT LOVE BIG BIOWARE.

I'm going to be clear, and I'll try not to sound dickish, but don't spit fire without checking your targets first.

This app is published solely by Geoff Keighley. It is not a Bioware product in any way. Keighley did the same thing with Valve for Portal 2. The app is all of three bucks.

EDIT: Also, the app is actually where we got the whole "lots of speculation from everybody" line.

You don't sound dickish, but my target was precise.
I never claimed that BioWare created the app, I was referring to the information they supplied to Geoff Keighly, just as Winston Smith was provided with the information needed for "Historical Revision". I also bear him no ill will specifically, as he has always been a seemingly fair and decent journalist, back to when I remember him being a host with Tina Wood on a tech show I used to watch a few years ago.

However, I have NO FAITH whatsoever that he was allowed free access to "negative" information, as companies just don't do anything that honest and transparent these days, and are closer to the world of 1984 than are governments:
"Newspeak
applies different meanings to things and actions by referring only to
the end to be achieved, not the means of achieving it... ...The Ministries do
achieve their goals; peace through war, and love of Big Brother through
mind control."
I also actually intended for the speculation comment to be a self-referring jibe as it applies both internally and externally to the ME discussion, in itself then becoming a meta description.
The three dollar cost is not the issue. Integrity (of a sort more important than artistic) prevents me from wasting yet more money to elaborate on an argument that is apparently exactly what was hoped for.

On a lighter note, "spitting fire" is much more productive when your opponent is a straw man, but I was not attempting to pose one.

[edisnooM]

On a somewhat lighter note someone made a video combining the Deus Ex and Mass Effect endings: www.youtube.com/watch. 

The entire video is worth watching if for no other reason than highlighting similarities, but it gets really funny around the 6:00 mark and then again at the 12:15 mark.

Modifié par edisnooM, 03 mai 2012 - 11:24 .

[delta_vee]

Keyrlis wrote...

[...] However, I have NO FAITH whatsoever that he was allowed free access to "negative" information, as companies just don't do anything that honest and transparent these days, and are closer to the world of 1984 than are governments [...].

I'd (respectfully) disagree. He was, after all, granted access to a number of things ("lots of speculation from everyone" most prominent among them) which ended up dealing measurable damage in the ending controversy. I thought the ensuing narrative was fairly honest in depicting the compromises made in the last few months of development. It was certainly far more information than is generally available through the normal doubleplusgood PR haze.

I also actually intended for the speculation comment to be a self-referring jibe as it applies both internally and externally to the ME discussion, in itself then becoming a meta description.
The three dollar cost is not the issue. Integrity (of a sort more important than artistic) prevents me from wasting yet more money to elaborate on an argument that is apparently exactly what was hoped for.

I sincerely doubt the argument which still rages (and rankles) is what was hoped for in any way, shape or form. And regardless, I think this particular strain of games journalism is worth supporting.

Plus, the app is interesting from a structural POV as a hint of potential journalistic evolution.

On a lighter note, "spitting fire" is much more productive when your opponent is a straw man, but I was not attempting to pose one.

I love the smell of napalm in the evening. Smells like...discussion.

[delta_vee]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

That's the secret that writers don't want to tell you: as long as a thing is thematically cohesive, the seams don't show.  Until it breaks your investment, you'll let 'em get away with murder.

This number from the Muppet Show is more appropriate to this situation than I was prepared for.

Yep. And yep. 

I wouldn't limit it to "thematically", though. I used "experientially" earlier, for lack of a better general term applicable to games, so I might use it here, too.

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

The progression of the series really speaks to EA's homogenization of the game industry, I think.

In Mass Effect 1, we got a game where the creators were able to explore their story and universe, and gameplay was almost secondary. It truly was a space opera, where we were taken places by the narrative, made to care about these people, and be there with them as they rose against the conflicts.

In Mass Effect 2, we've still got a lot of great story elements, but it felt more like the space opera was becoming an action movie in the name of appealing to a larger audience (ie selling more copies). We still had our characters and story, but the parts where you shoot and kill stuff was starting to become more important.

In Mass Effect 3, it was a straight up action film from beginning to end, with scenes and musical cues designed more to manipulate you into an emotional response rather than presenting you with a narrative that earned those responses from you. I feel like this game was more the product of a "Gears of Modern Warfare" age, where EA didn't want a game that had a gripping, emotional story, they wanted a product that would make them a lot of money. Hence, the multiplayer. Because everyone wants to shoot stuff online, and everyone bought the first two ME games for the multiplayer, right?

My latest thoughts.

WRT ME1 and ME2, I'd respectfully disagree. I'm always skeptical of accusations of EA interference at low levels. ME was never going to be a CoD-killer. Not a chance.

Realize, though, that ME is in fact two games in one, interleaved but rarely directly interacting. The first (Game A) is the higher-level walking around and talking to people, dialogue-wheel-driven one, which is the game we spend our time discussing. The second (Game is a glorified minigame, comprised of third-person cover-based shooting, used as a plot traversal device to link story/dialogue nodes together.

In ME1, Game A is what drew us in, despite its occasional clunks. Game B was, not to mince words, atrocious. I have a hard time replaying Game  A because Game B gets in the way.

In ME2, Game A took a different direction, emphasizing a wide cast of characters and expanding the texture of the world. Game B took a big step forward in terms of palatibility, despite overcompensating on some elements. The fact that Game B was given so much attention (though not necessarily at the detriment of Game A) made it seem like Game B was being favored. It wasn't - it just wasn't being ignored or excused as in ME1.

ME3 finally got Game B figured out, by and large. Third time's a charm, and all that. But the failings of Game A became so glaring (especially the Infamous Ten Minutes, hereon ITM) that the balance of attention seemed to be heavily in favor of Game B. Especially with Game B including (generally well-received, ultimately) multiplayer. (Bear in mind, though, that Mass Effect was originally envisioned as a persistently multiplayer game.)

I don't think this is an EA master plan at work. The handling of Javik's DLC and online passes certainly are, but not the core game design. That's all on Bioware.

[Hawk227]

delta_vee wrote...

WRT ME1 and ME2, I'd respectfully disagree. I'm always skeptical of accusations of EA interference at low levels. ME was never going to be a CoD-killer. Not a chance.

For some reason EA owns the rights to all the titles I've wanted to play the last few years (Dead Space, Crysis 2, ME) and I've noticed some stylistic similarities across these titles. Each seem to get dumbed down a little in later incarnations, Dead Space 2 inexplicably incorporated MP as well, and a host of little things (like mashing B to shed husks/necromorphs) I only really notice while I'm playing them. I wouldn't say that EA is homogenizing the gaming industry, but there does seem to be a modest homogenization of their titles.

delta_vee wrote...

Realize, though, that ME is in fact two games in one, interleaved but rarely directly interacting. The first (Game A) is the higher-level walking around and talking to people, dialogue-wheel-driven one, which is the game we spend our time discussing. The second (Game is a glorified minigame, comprised of third-person cover-based shooting, used as a plot traversal device to link story/dialogue nodes together.

In ME1, Game A is what drew us in, despite its occasional clunks. Game B was, not to mince words, atrocious. I have a hard time replaying Game  A because Game B gets in the way.

In ME2, Game A took a different direction, emphasizing a wide cast of characters and expanding the texture of the world. Game B took a big step forward in terms of palatibility, despite overcompensating on some elements. The fact that Game B was given so much attention (though not necessarily at the detriment of Game A) made it seem like Game B was being favored. It wasn't - it just wasn't being ignored or excused as in ME1.

ME3 finally got Game B figured out, by and large. Third time's a charm, and all that. But the failings of Game A became so glaring (especially the Infamous Ten Minutes, hereon ITM) that the balance of attention seemed to be heavily in favor of Game B. Especially with Game B including (generally well-received, ultimately) multiplayer. (Bear in mind, though, that Mass Effect was originally envisioned as a persistently multiplayer game.)

I don't think this is an EA master plan at work. The handling of Javik's DLC and online passes certainly are, but not the core game design. That's all on Bioware.

I agree. ME2 is still my favorite because it was the most balanced. I try and go back to ME1 for game A, but game B is only enjoyable late in the game, so I tend to plod through the first half like it's a chore. Having just started ME3 for the first time in a month, I'm finding that Game B is really good, while Game A is (for the most part) pretty good in the moment. Only in retrospect does it fall apart.

EDIT: Formatting

Modifié par Hawk227, 04 mai 2012 - 12:27 .

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I'd love to tempt you the other half of the way. I'm really interested to hear others' thoughts and analyses on the matter.

Sometime. Not tonight, though - I'm feeling like something of a spoilsport in this thread as it is.