56 réponses à ce sujet

[sAxMoNkI]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Pinkflamingo22 wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

The choices that lead to the decisions you mention, while leading to the same result, play out differently due to the circumstances they occur under.

For example, while the Genophage can be cured without Maelon's data and Wreav can be in charge (instead of Mordin and Wrex), the ramifications of this are vast. Without the leadership of Wrex and Eve the Krogan will expand again and trigger a repeat of the Krogan rebellions.

I grant you immediate differences aren't apparent but its the way these end results play out that is what differentiates them.

Its not a lack of care from Bioware its more of an over-willingness to give new players as much of a chance as those who have played the trilogy in full. the extent to which this happened in ME3 was a mistake in my eyes, but I digress.

I would be more inclined to point out the streamlining of the dialogue system itself as an example of choice being taken away.

What end results? I didn't see any different end results for any choices. The point of ME3 was to see the outcomes of our choices. There are none, you can't even lose! I should be able to lose and not defeat the reapers, didn't we all assume that? I do agree with your final comment about dialog.

I meant in the sense of what is implied for the future rather than what is directly observed on screen.
Short term: Both result in cured Krogan
Long term: One series of events results in war, one series of events results in a stable and arguably improved Krogan people.

but they don't even show us that?

If I wanted to make up my own outcomes I could do that for free. When I buy a game I don't expect to have to assume things turn out one way or another. I mean why does one result in war, there's tons of other variables I could think of that would lead to tons of other outcomes.

I know, this is why I said it was *implied* not *shown*. I grant you it would be nice to see the payoff of this choice and it is hopefully something that the extended cut will deal with.

For example a scene of Tuchanka being rebuilt by the clans working together with salrian aid under the watchful eyes of Wrex and Eve.

OR

A scene of Tuchanka still in ruins with Wreav murdered and large scale clan warfare occuring and invasions of other planets by the newly reinvigorated Krogan horde.

But these far reaching consequences should only be shown as part of an epilogue. As that is being implemented now via the extended cut I think it is wise to wait and see before saying decisions had no differences.

[ahandsomeshark]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

Man's got a point. Though in terms of real world business practise they were smart to appeal to as wide a market as possible. Sad truth is the potential for increased revenue usually trumps preferable design choices.

but would people who hadn't played the previous games even notice that stuff wasn't there? I mean if you look at the default choices for ME3 most long-term fans would say new players start out pretty screwed anyway. If that doesn't alienate them why would missing characters and arcs? And if they did wouldn't that make them more likely to go and buy the other games and play them?

Plus as far as business practices there's the fact that by trying to appeal wider they alienated a HUGE section of their core base Even if it's a minority, if 10-15% of people stop pre-ordering or start buying used and trading in that's going to have a massive problem in an industry won on the margins. And especially for a company teetering on those margins.

Like before I bought the game I was legitimately planning on buying a copy for my 360 and my PS3 just because I wanted to see how all my choices from ME1 carried over, now I'm not even sure I'm going to keep my PS3 copy long enough to see the EC. And it would take A LOT to get me to trust bioware enough to ever pre-order or buy a CE edition again. Is the short term profit gain (which by all accounts didn't even happen based on sales and stock numbers) really worth damaging over a decades worth of brand loyalty?

[Hogge87]

Edolix wrote...

It's because BioWare doesn't want new players to miss out on any content whatsoever. Which is why there is a replacement Rachni Queen, a replacement Mordin, a replacement Council, a replacement Legion, a replacement...

I'll stop. Needless to say I hate this.

I was just about to write essentially this.

It's not a matter of resources: it's a matter of making the game enjoyable for new players.

[ahandsomeshark]

Delta_V2 wrote...

I was satisfied with how your choices affected the Genophage and Rannoch arcs. Your actions regarding Wrex, Mordin, and Maelon's data all affected how the genophage story played out. These arcs gave me hope that we would see this level of impact in the main arc. But that never happened. Priority: Earth was where all of your previous choices should have come together, but it failed horribly.

yes this. Priority Earth as a whole was one of the weakest levels in the entire series. When it should have been the biggest and most emotional.

[Delta_V2]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Pinkflamingo22 wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

The choices that lead to the decisions you mention, while leading to the same result, play out differently due to the circumstances they occur under.

For example, while the Genophage can be cured without Maelon's data and Wreav can be in charge (instead of Mordin and Wrex), the ramifications of this are vast. Without the leadership of Wrex and Eve the Krogan will expand again and trigger a repeat of the Krogan rebellions.

I grant you immediate differences aren't apparent but its the way these end results play out that is what differentiates them.

Its not a lack of care from Bioware its more of an over-willingness to give new players as much of a chance as those who have played the trilogy in full. the extent to which this happened in ME3 was a mistake in my eyes, but I digress.

I would be more inclined to point out the streamlining of the dialogue system itself as an example of choice being taken away.

What end results? I didn't see any different end results for any choices. The point of ME3 was to see the outcomes of our choices. There are none, you can't even lose! I should be able to lose and not defeat the reapers, didn't we all assume that? I do agree with your final comment about dialog.

I meant in the sense of what is implied for the future rather than what is directly observed on screen.
Short term: Both result in cured Krogan
Long term: One series of events results in war, one series of events results in a stable and arguably improved Krogan people.

but they don't even show us that?

If I wanted to make up my own outcomes I could do that for free. When I buy a game I don't expect to have to assume things turn out one way or another. I mean why does one result in war, there's tons of other variables I could think of that would lead to tons of other outcomes.

This was a recurring issue throughout ME3.  Bioware apparently forgot one of the golden rules of story telling:  "Show, don't tell"

Udina replacing Anderson as Councilor, the Reapers taking over the Citadel, etc.  All of this should have been shown, but instead we were merely told about it.

Of course, the worst instance is the endings.  We are told our choices will have wildly diverging consequences, but we are only shown virtually identical cutscenes that don't actually explain anything.

[Alamar2078]

Edolix wrote...

It's because BioWare doesn't want new players to miss out on any content whatsoever. Which is why there is a replacement Rachni Queen, a replacement Mordin, a replacement Council, a replacement Legion, a replacement...

I'll stop. Needless to say I hate this.

Agreed.   This choice is one of the things that, IMHO, torpedoed ME3's chances of being the standard bearer of games & series that champion player choice as having direct effects on the course of the game itself.

Even if the game were great I wouldn't see the point of playing through more than a few times because you'll see 99% of the content with so few playthroughs ...

[sAxMoNkI]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

Man's got a point. Though in terms of real world business practise they were smart to appeal to as wide a market as possible. Sad truth is the potential for increased revenue usually trumps preferable design choices.

but would people who hadn't played the previous games even notice that stuff wasn't there? I mean if you look at the default choices for ME3 most long-term fans would say new players start out pretty screwed anyway. If that doesn't alienate them why would missing characters and arcs? And if they did wouldn't that make them more likely to go and buy the other games and play them?

Plus as far as business practices there's the fact that by trying to appeal wider they alienated a HUGE section of their core base Even if it's a minority, if 10-15% of people stop pre-ordering or start buying used and trading in that's going to have a massive problem in an industry won on the margins. And especially for a company teetering on those margins.

Like before I bought the game I was legitimately planning on buying a copy for my 360 and my PS3 just because I wanted to see how all my choices from ME1 carried over, now I'm not even sure I'm going to keep my PS3 copy long enough to see the EC. And it would take A LOT to get me to trust bioware enough to ever pre-order or buy a CE edition again. Is the short term profit gain (which by all accounts didn't even happen based on sales and stock numbers) really worth damaging over a decades worth of brand loyalty?

A good point, I forgot the "can't miss what you never had" perspective. That said Bioware would have had to implement a way to make the game winnable meaning alternate story arcs and war assetts. This  leads to a problem with the war assett system as players with imported save would have far to high an EMS score. Meaning the only way to solve this would be alternate story arcs inaccessible to players who have imported saves, or give replacements for missing story characters.

From a cost and time standpoint it makes sense to go with the latter. Its regrettable from a story perspective I agree and the game should NEVER have been marketed as a good starting point. The first installment of a trilogy is a generally the best starting point

[TonViper]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

but they don't even show us that?

If I wanted to make up my own outcomes I could do that for free. When I buy a game I don't expect to have to assume things turn out one way or another. I mean why does one result in war, there's tons of other variables I could think of that would lead to tons of other outcomes.

That's a problem with the ending, not a problem with the Tuchanka arc. It is implied that the Krogan will spread unchecked without Wrex and Eve to lead them and the genophage cured, but we never do get confirmation, one way or the other. I would have loved for us to get a post game follow up on what the conseqences of our actions were, but as I said, that's a problem with the ending, not with the arc itself.

[ahandsomeshark]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

Man's got a point. Though in terms of real world business practise they were smart to appeal to as wide a market as possible. Sad truth is the potential for increased revenue usually trumps preferable design choices.

but would people who hadn't played the previous games even notice that stuff wasn't there? I mean if you look at the default choices for ME3 most long-term fans would say new players start out pretty screwed anyway. If that doesn't alienate them why would missing characters and arcs? And if they did wouldn't that make them more likely to go and buy the other games and play them?

Plus as far as business practices there's the fact that by trying to appeal wider they alienated a HUGE section of their core base Even if it's a minority, if 10-15% of people stop pre-ordering or start buying used and trading in that's going to have a massive problem in an industry won on the margins. And especially for a company teetering on those margins.

Like before I bought the game I was legitimately planning on buying a copy for my 360 and my PS3 just because I wanted to see how all my choices from ME1 carried over, now I'm not even sure I'm going to keep my PS3 copy long enough to see the EC. And it would take A LOT to get me to trust bioware enough to ever pre-order or buy a CE edition again. Is the short term profit gain (which by all accounts didn't even happen based on sales and stock numbers) really worth damaging over a decades worth of brand loyalty?

A good point, I forgot the "can't miss what you never had" perspective. That said Bioware would have had to implement a way to make the game winnable meaning alternate story arcs and war assetts. This  leads to a problem with the war assett system as players with imported save would have far to high an EMS score. Meaning the only way to solve this would be alternate story arcs inaccessible to players who have imported saves, or give replacements for missing story characters.

From a cost and time standpoint it makes sense to go with the latter. Its regrettable from a story perspective I agree and the game should NEVER have been marketed as a good starting point. The first installment of a trilogy is a generally the best starting point

they already did impliment that. Multiplayer. Regardless of whether you imported or not if you play enough multiplayer you can reach all the EMS thresholds.

[Dendio1]

The Angry One wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

VendettaI154 wrote...

Edolix wrote...

It's because BioWare doesn't want new players to miss out on any content whatsoever. Which is why there is a replacement Rachni Queen, a replacement Mordin, a replacement Council, a replacement Legion, a replacement...

I'll stop. Needless to say I hate this.

Agreed. BioWare clearly pandered to new players to much. No Casey, Mass Effect 3 is not a great place to jump into the trilogy. IT'S THE FRACKING END OF THE TRILOGY.

So you rather they just chop the game up, so that people who killed off characters miss out on entire arcs? Its either that or what we got, because they arent adding alternate arcs for past choices.

Why shouldn't they? Maybe they could divert resources used to voice 20 minutes of Blasto and the Codex, which are nice but unecesarry and do alternate arcs.
They don't have to do it for everything, but there's no excuse for the laziness of what they did with the Rachni.

Forcing the arcs to be similar on the large scale, while poking in little differences on the small scale allowed for a more focused experience. The developers were free to include bits of dialogue and other supporting elements without fear of losing hold of narrative coherence.

If they made radically different arcs for all of the major choices throughout the series, we would end up with a shorter game and content most people won't see unless they did replays with different decisions. To an extent, we already had this, but such a thing was unavoidable this late in the series.

On the rachni, once the devs decided to include rachni reaper forms as a major mob the deed was done. We can buy into the in-game explanation or call it a retcon, the devs ultimately decided that having the mob in game was more important than honoring the players choice from me1.

Lets consider their options regarding this:
They could have altered it so that the mobs never showed, but that would require adjusting nearly every reaper mob fight in game to accomidate for their absence. The benefit of killing the rachni queen would be no rachni mobs, while the benefit of letting her live would be nothing more than a number on the EMS chart. I feel they would need to be balanced better. The rachni queen being alive should have a similar impact on the game as her being dead. This would bring into question why the rachni decision holds infinitely more weight than any of the other major decisions. The queen would affect game mechanics where as the others would largely be EMS numbers. In the end the devs just decided to avoid the issue by creating a false queen. We can call it lazyness, but it actually seems like the alternate choice would be both difficult to make and complicated to execute.

Modifié par Dendio1, 27 avril 2012 - 04:03 .

[TonViper]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

they already did impliment that. Multiplayer. Regardless of whether you imported or not if you play enough multiplayer you can reach all the EMS thresholds.

The problem with that is that multiplayer on the 360 requires a gold subscription, which they cannot automatically assume that everyone will have access to.

There's already enough controversy over multiplayer being needed for maximum EMS for the "good" ending in your first playthrough, so having it as a mechanic to cover for missing EMS from unavailable story arcs would fail from the start.

The entire EMS system is flawed in my opinion. They should have found a better way to differentiate between the endings.

[sAxMoNkI]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

they already did impliment that. Multiplayer. Regardless of whether you imported or not if you play enough multiplayer you can reach all the EMS thresholds.

True but they also promised that multiplayer would not be necessary for any player in order to get the best ending. So they had to make the single player EMS model self contained with multiplayer acting as a useful addition, not a crutch.

[Nauks]

Dendio1 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

When I finished ME3 I was pretty satisfied with 99% of the game, apart from the ending, of course, which wasn't good.

But every time I go onto the forums to see if there is news or opinions or theories about this ending, I keep seeing very valid criticisms of the game come to light, outside the ending.

This is making me more and more unsatisfied with the game, as I begin to compare it to the previous titles as single, rich experiences.

Some things I never would have noticed, if I had gotten a satisfying, high quality, logically written ending:

- Lack of nuetral dialogue options
- Absurd amount of fetch quests
- No really compelling side missions
- Auto-dialogue
- Terrible Prioroty : Earth mission
- Didn't "Take earth back"
- Psuedo-character replacements for deceased characters.
- Lack of choice impacts <-----------------------
- two fairly brown, uninspiring, planets as main mission centres. (Tuchunka and Rannoch)
- only about 20 hours of real action oriented gameplay
- Severe lack of hub worlds, only 1 - citdael.
- Insanity "difficulty" not insane.
- BORING planet scanning
- Glitchy conversations.

Feel free to add more things you happened to notice only after you started hanging out on BSN for news and discussion after the ending.

Would not have noticed or cared if the ending delivered

So true, a lot of us would have accepted these shortcomings, all 3 games had them after all (albeit ME3 arguably takes the cake) but the point, the real kicker of these false hopes and undelivered promises, they would have been made up for in the final outcome, simple as.

Not only do we get a (deliberately?) terribad ending, but nothing is redeemed, nothing about what came before matters.

[Christianswe]

I thought the choices were ok trough the games, but at the ending of ME3, they drop the ball.
Even if you can´t change Shepards destiny, i atleast think you would be able to influence the other chararcters.

[Dendio1]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

VendettaI154 wrote...

Edolix wrote...

It's because BioWare doesn't want new players to miss out on any content whatsoever. Which is why there is a replacement Rachni Queen, a replacement Mordin, a replacement Council, a replacement Legion, a replacement...

I'll stop. Needless to say I hate this.

Agreed. BioWare clearly pandered to new players to much. No Casey, Mass Effect 3 is not a great place to jump into the trilogy. IT'S THE FRACKING END OF THE TRILOGY.

So you rather they just chop the game up, so that people who killed off characters miss out on entire arcs? Its either that or what we got, because they arent adding alternate arcs for past choices.

 

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

You are asking someone to purchase 2 entire games to generate a save that unlocks major missions in a third game. You thought day one dlc was bad, imagine the ****storm from a policy which demands you buy and correctly play the previous two games to see major content in 3.

Tali dying is one thing. Not seeing Rannoch at all is a whole different animal.

[TonViper]

Dendio1 wrote...

You are asking someone to purchase 2 entire games to generate a save that unlocks major missions in a third game. You thought day one dlc was bad, imagine the ****storm from a policy which demands you buy and correctly play the previous two games to see major content in 3.

Tali dying is one thing. Not seeing Rannoch at all is a whole different animal.

But tali is alive by default. That means that a hypothetical version of the game where Tali's death cuts out the Rannoch arc would only be available to those who specifically played the previous game and got her killed.

Here's one that is already in the game now:
Wrex is dead by default, but the Tuchanka arc isn't cut out due to that, the player is just cut off from the best ending, which needs Wrex alive. Nobody is complaining about new players missing out on anything due to that.

This way, there would be significant consequences to your actions in the previous games, while new players will have access to a game that is more or less as ME3 is now for them anyway.

[nitefyre410]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

they already did impliment that. Multiplayer. Regardless of whether you imported or not if you play enough multiplayer you can reach all the EMS thresholds.

True but they also promised that multiplayer would not be necessary for any player in order to get the best ending. So they had to make the single player EMS model self contained with multiplayer acting as a useful addition, not a crutch.

  

Multiplayer should have never have been marketed as  means to affect the EMS in singleplayer .  Not that I have issue with multiplayer I love socail gaming and I think RPGS have  good  place of rebirth of Co-oP  game play but it should be seperate from the SP game.  

That being said they would have made a good amount of bank with a ME collection that had ME 1 and Me 2 w/DLC.  Releasing that around the holidays season.    

Still Like you said the last game of the Trilogy is never a good place to come in on...ever. 

[IUDEX99]

Well, maybe a lot of people did expect too much and maybe the advertizing of ME3 did arrowse a lot of expections that did not were fullfilled.

On the other hand, the player's decisions never had a big impact on the story. The decisions did matter but just in dialogue-lines or cutscenes. The storyline itself was never really changed.
Saving the Rachni-Queen had no impact in ME1 and there was just a small conversation in ME2 if you saved the her.
ME3 is still a game for itself. Punishing players for having played the previous games would be as inadequat as punishing those who did not play the games (or those who even could not, regarding the console owners).

But there could have been some 30-second-cutscenes, a few more dialogue-lines and other gimmicks as a reward for those wo were inporting a character to show some consequence due to prevoius decisions.
Of course it would have been great if missions could be replaced, i.e. if you made e specific decision in the prevoius games you just could get mission A istead of mission B and the outcome in the game would still be the same. But that would have meant to make redundant missions which cost time and money developing those. The developers went a different path, they deceided to include specific characters into specific missions.

Some characters might completely be missing in the game, depending on previous decisions. For every squadmate from ME2 there is a missions where he/she could appear if he/she survived the suicide mission.
If they survived, they get a cameo and a few dialogue lines. Works for me. Even if I sometimes felt that all theese cameos were a bit forced. An appeareance on the Citadel, a visit on the Normandy migth have been enough, but everyone and everything gets a cameo. Everyone has specifific favors regarding the characters and the writer were willing to suit eveyone.

What I cannot understand in this context is that the people are still not pleased.
I will give an example and try to explain my musunderstanding:
You saved Samara and do the monastry-mission. She's there, cool. You get a few lines of dialogue with her, fine. You can even intervene ehen she wants to commit suicide, very fine.
Now you import a savegame where she is dead and you are unpleased due to the fact that there still is a mission in the monastry? I do not know if someone else takes her place, but I assume there is someon with nearly the same dialogue lines.
So what should have BW been doing? Removing the whole mission?
The only thing that could have been done were maybe to include some more Samara-specific-dialogue to mnake the player feel that he has a liitle reward due to the fact that he saved her in ME2.
But that's the only point I can agree with.
Expecting that missions should have been removed or dozens of redundant missions should have been implemented is not realistic. ME3 is still a stand-alone-game and rewarding players from the prevoius games should appear as a little bonus for those and is not the whole porpuse of ME3.

Every fan (including me) would have loved to see his decisions from the prevoius games having more impact in ME3.
In the ending of the game, our decisions could have matteres if there were sepecific scenes relating to the war-assets.
If we had seen scenes with Rachni-scout-ships, lines up Primes advancinfg reaper-forces while Quarians covering them with coverfire etc. we all would had at least an idea about how our decisions did matter.
The complete war-asset-system was something I expected would matter somehow and our decisions would show off. But as being it just a poor little statistic were numbers are added it has not really an impact in the story.

Yes, our decisions could matter more, but they already matter the same way as they did in the prevoius games and that is a little. That our decisions really had an impact on the story was allways an illusion but in ME and ME2 rhis fact was much better cached than in ME3.

And sometimes I feel that our discontent with ending is way too much overshadowing the rest of the game.


Cheers

Dex

Modifié par IUDEX99, 27 avril 2012 - 04:29 .

[Dendio1]

TonViper wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

You are asking someone to purchase 2 entire games to generate a save that unlocks major missions in a third game. You thought day one dlc was bad, imagine the ****storm from a policy which demands you buy and correctly play the previous two games to see major content in 3.

Tali dying is one thing. Not seeing Rannoch at all is a whole different animal.

But tali is alive by default. That means that a hypothetical version of the game where Tali's death cuts out the Rannoch arc would only be available to those who specifically played the previous game and got her killed.

Here's one that is already in the game now:
Wrex is dead by default, but the Tuchanka arc isn't cut out due to that, the player is just cut off from the best ending, which needs Wrex alive. Nobody is complaining about new players missing out on anything due to that.

This way, there would be significant consequences to your actions in the previous games, while new players will have access to a game that is more or less as ME3 is now for them anyway.

Currently there is missing bits of information that you only get if you made the right decisions ( and some you only get by making the less popular ones). For example Legion gives you insight on the old machines that geth AI refuses you. Pardok Wiks tells you things you would never hear with Mordin and then theres the mystical Geth Prime that only 10 percent of the fan base knows can appear on priority earth. The consequences are there, just not as terrible as you would like.

Modifié par Dendio1, 27 avril 2012 - 04:33 .

[Sir Hecubus]

Dendio1 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

VendettaI154 wrote...

Edolix wrote...

It's because BioWare doesn't want new players to miss out on any content whatsoever. Which is why there is a replacement Rachni Queen, a replacement Mordin, a replacement Council, a replacement Legion, a replacement...

I'll stop. Needless to say I hate this.

Agreed. BioWare clearly pandered to new players to much. No Casey, Mass Effect 3 is not a great place to jump into the trilogy. IT'S THE FRACKING END OF THE TRILOGY.

So you rather they just chop the game up, so that people who killed off characters miss out on entire arcs? Its either that or what we got, because they arent adding alternate arcs for past choices.

 

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

You are asking someone to purchase 2 entire games to generate a save that unlocks major missions in a third game. You thought day one dlc was bad, imagine the ****storm from a policy which demands you buy and correctly play the previous two games to see major content in 3.

Tali dying is one thing. Not seeing Rannoch at all is a whole different animal.

Just because Tali is dead doesn't mean you can't see Rannoch.  But if you were to destroy the Krogan genephage data, you shouldn't be able to cure it, at all because the cure is gone.  and would take too ljong to do all the research again. so that mission should be out.  This is what the game should have been, but ultimately it wasn't.

I think at the begning Bioware didn't have a full grasp as to what was going to happen in the story, or even how the game would play out.  which is fine.  First game i can think of that allows previous choices to affect the next game. (witcher 1 and 2 do this i think).  so it was a pretty big undertaking in that regard. With that being said, i think in the future game companies should have the trilogy laid out before hand and then make the games based around that.  It would make the descisions easier to keep track of and see where they could possibly branch out.

People are willing to overlook some flaws as long as the game delivers on a whole, which a good portion of ME3 did but the last mission and the starchild ruined it for a good number of people.

[Yorkston9152]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

Man's got a point. Though in terms of real world business practise they were smart to appeal to as wide a market as possible. Sad truth is the potential for increased revenue usually trumps preferable design choices.

The one issue that seems to pop up though is most people ive run into who jumped into ME3 with no past ME experiance couldnt care about the over all "story". They just got it cuz of the cool trailers and all the hype. Not saying they are knuckle dragging apes, but couldnt care if wrex wasnt there, or if mordin dies.

The core of the people who care about the story and the flow of it are in  fact the people who have been playing since ME1 or at least ME2 and have spent hours crafting and modling the story as they want. Seemed kinda a silly move in the end by alienating your old fan base who have spent hundreds of dollors on you for a new group that will ditch you for the next good thing.

[NoUserNameHere]

Dendio1 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

VendettaI154 wrote...

Edolix wrote...

It's because BioWare doesn't want new players to miss out on any content whatsoever. Which is why there is a replacement Rachni Queen, a replacement Mordin, a replacement Council, a replacement Legion, a replacement...

I'll stop. Needless to say I hate this.

Agreed. BioWare clearly pandered to new players to much. No Casey, Mass Effect 3 is not a great place to jump into the trilogy. IT'S THE FRACKING END OF THE TRILOGY.

So you rather they just chop the game up, so that people who killed off characters miss out on entire arcs? Its either that or what we got, because they arent adding alternate arcs for past choices.

 

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

You are asking someone to purchase 2 entire games to generate a save that unlocks major missions in a third game. You thought day one dlc was bad, imagine the ****storm from a policy which demands you buy and correctly play the previous two games to see major content in 3.

Tali dying is one thing. Not seeing Rannoch at all is a whole different animal.

You know this can be altered through those pre-game interactive comics we were promissed, right?

Or, hell, a menu option, like your character background. Dragon Age 2 did this option in a perfectly acceptable fashion.

[Silasqtx]

No.

/thread

[sAxMoNkI]

Yorkston9152 wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Yep I would...

You killed that  Character - you miss out on that arc of the story...   consequence.  Go back play the games again and  keep that character alive. 

Man's got a point. Though in terms of real world business practise they were smart to appeal to as wide a market as possible. Sad truth is the potential for increased revenue usually trumps preferable design choices.

The one issue that seems to pop up though is most people ive run into who jumped into ME3 with no past ME experiance couldnt care about the over all "story". They just got it cuz of the cool trailers and all the hype. Not saying they are knuckle dragging apes, but couldnt care if wrex wasnt there, or if mordin dies.

The core of the people who care about the story and the flow of it are in  fact the people who have been playing since ME1 or at least ME2 and have spent hours crafting and modling the story as they want. Seemed kinda a silly move in the end by alienating your old fan base who have spent hundreds of dollors on you for a new group that will ditch you for the next good thing.

True but i imagine they were hoping to both retain the loyal fanbase AND net the "casual crowd" (though I hate that term). Sadly to me at least its a case of Jack-of-all-trades.....