346 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Because Mac Walter's decided that his artistic vision is more important than the players.

In storytelling, the writer's final vision is actually more important than the reader/player's.  If they wanted to come up with an ending to satisfy the players, they would have to create hundred's of different endings to satisfy all the different expectations from players around the world and that is not feasable.

Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it, but if it bugs you so much, then it's really just a matter of first world problems.  You'll be fine.

In a game based on player choice, player agency trumps the writer's "artistic statement".
The creators of Dragon Age understood this.

[JamieCOTC]

Fireblader70 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

It seems to have been many things.

from Patrick Weekes Twitter ...

autodialog a bit different. Partly to make it easier to do so many scenes, yes...
https://twitter.com/...830019866210304

...but also to get more natural dialog. Hard to make impactful, player-involved scene when you pick each line.
https://twitter.com/...830230780973056

We're looking at reception. I can see times I wish we'd had another choice -- but also times choices we HAD clunked the scene.
https://twitter.com/...830519156150272

did you play LotSB? Tried middle ground, using interrupts to take over conversation. Problem: people missed 'em.
https://twitter.com/...834018644340736

always after interface that balances player control, ability to make fast, emotional, cinematic scenes. Never perfect. Yet.
https://twitter.com/...834845899489280

From this I gather that the actual cinematic story and gameplay was more of a priority than player control. Which is a bit of a shame, but I can handle it.

Certainly to each his own, but I would glady trade cinematic story for more player control.  I wanted Mass Effect, not Uncharted in Space. 

[Fireblader70]

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Because Mac Walter's decided that his artistic vision is more important than the players.

In storytelling, the writer's final vision is actually more important than the reader/player's.  If they wanted to come up with an ending to satisfy the players, they would have to create hundred's of different endings to satisfy all the different expectations from players around the world and that is not feasable.

Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it, but if it bugs you so much, then it's really just a matter of first world problems.  You'll be fine.

In a game based on player choice, player agency trumps the writer's "artistic statement".
The creators of Dragon Age understood this.

Not Dragon Age 2, that's for sure...

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Because Mac Walter's decided that his artistic vision is more important than the players.

In storytelling, the writer's final vision is actually more important than the reader/player's.  If they wanted to come up with an ending to satisfy the players, they would have to create hundred's of different endings to satisfy all the different expectations from players around the world and that is not feasable.

Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it, but if it bugs you so much, then it's really just a matter of first world problems.  You'll be fine.

Actually I don't think so just the different potential endings with shepard beating the reapers under his or her own willpower without the person who controls the reapers to begin withs help or choices

That and if you had Li it could be like

Shepard helping liara rebuild thessia maybe have blue kids


Shepard builds that house for tali on rannoch and you can see the geth and quarians slowly rebuilding their homeworlf

Shepard talks with garriuses dad on palaven to ask him if she could have his blessing

and then the other human Li could be about rebuilding earth and spending time with them

It didn't have to be one hundred different endings just maybe a true ending where shepard lives and goes to retire with li or help Li rebuild his or her world

[Fireblader70]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

It seems to have been many things.

from Patrick Weekes Twitter ...

autodialog a bit different. Partly to make it easier to do so many scenes, yes...
https://twitter.com/...830019866210304

...but also to get more natural dialog. Hard to make impactful, player-involved scene when you pick each line.
https://twitter.com/...830230780973056

We're looking at reception. I can see times I wish we'd had another choice -- but also times choices we HAD clunked the scene.
https://twitter.com/...830519156150272

did you play LotSB? Tried middle ground, using interrupts to take over conversation. Problem: people missed 'em.
https://twitter.com/...834018644340736

always after interface that balances player control, ability to make fast, emotional, cinematic scenes. Never perfect. Yet.
https://twitter.com/...834845899489280

From this I gather that the actual cinematic story and gameplay was more of a priority than player control. Which is a bit of a shame, but I can handle it.

Certainly to each his own, but I would glady trade cinematic story for more player control.  I wanted Mass Effect, not Uncharted in Space. 

I do wish there was more control in Mass Effect 3, but I was entertained enough with what I got. Now, if this happens again in another product, then I will start to frown.

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Because Mac Walter's decided that his artistic vision is more important than the players.

In storytelling, the writer's final vision is actually more important than the reader/player's.  If they wanted to come up with an ending to satisfy the players, they would have to create hundred's of different endings to satisfy all the different expectations from players around the world and that is not feasable.

Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it, but if it bugs you so much, then it's really just a matter of first world problems.  You'll be fine.

In a game based on player choice, player agency trumps the writer's "artistic statement".
The creators of Dragon Age understood this.

Just because you liked the Dragon Age ending doesn't change the fact that there was a limited amount of choice that was allowed.  At some point in the game, they had to begin to remove freedom from the player to allow the ending to come together.  Regardless of your choices, you still had to face the dragon on the roof.  Then you chose from a very limited set of options how you wanted to end the game.  Same with ME3.

The difference being, you were happy with DA, you may not be with ME3, but it's not like it presented you with tons more options at the end.

[The Angry One]

Fireblader70 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Because Mac Walter's decided that his artistic vision is more important than the players.

In storytelling, the writer's final vision is actually more important than the reader/player's.  If they wanted to come up with an ending to satisfy the players, they would have to create hundred's of different endings to satisfy all the different expectations from players around the world and that is not feasable.

Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it, but if it bugs you so much, then it's really just a matter of first world problems.  You'll be fine.

In a game based on player choice, player agency trumps the writer's "artistic statement".
The creators of Dragon Age understood this.

Not Dragon Age 2, that's for sure...

Dragon Age 2 was certainly the beginning of the rot, of cinematics and rigid story taking over from player choice.
But even then, at least you felt you were in control of Hawke. It was the events around you that were ultimately set in stone and unsatisfying.
Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

[thisisme8]

LiarasShield wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Because Mac Walter's decided that his artistic vision is more important than the players.

In storytelling, the writer's final vision is actually more important than the reader/player's.  If they wanted to come up with an ending to satisfy the players, they would have to create hundred's of different endings to satisfy all the different expectations from players around the world and that is not feasable.

Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it, but if it bugs you so much, then it's really just a matter of first world problems.  You'll be fine.

Actually I don't think so just the different potential endings with shepard beating the reapers under his or her own willpower without the person who controls the reapers to begin withs help or choices

That and if you had Li it could be like

Shepard helping liara rebuild thessia maybe have blue kids


Shepard builds that house for tali on rannoch and you can see the geth and quarians slowly rebuilding their homeworlf

Shepard talks with garriuses dad on palaven to ask him if she could have his blessing

and then the other human Li could be about rebuilding earth and spending time with them

It didn't have to be one hundred different endings just maybe a true ending where shepard lives and goes to retire with li or help Li rebuild his or her world

What happens in the epilogue has nothing to do with your freedom at the end of the game.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

Just because you liked the Dragon Age ending doesn't change the fact that there was a limited amount of choice that was allowed.  At some point in the game, they had to begin to remove freedom from the player to allow the ending to come together.  Regardless of your choices, you still had to face the dragon on the roof.  Then you chose from a very limited set of options how you wanted to end the game.  Same with ME3.

The difference being, you were happy with DA, you may not be with ME3, but it's not like it presented you with tons more options at the end.

Quanitity is not the issue. Choices that give suitable options to the player that reflect the themes of the game are.
DA:O gave you several options to complete the story, and gave an impression of what your choices throughout the game would affect afterwards.

ME3 gives you no choices. You must always behave like an idiot. You must always surrender to the Catalyst. You must always pick a colour. Joker will always strand his stupid ass on a jungle planet, and so on. Nothing that happens at the end of ME3 reflects what came before.

[LiarasShield]

Their didn't have to a thousand different endings just one where shepard lives and ends up with his or her particular love interest and helps him or her rebuild their world thats all that probably ever needed to be added and it would be close to the 16 different endings promise or how it wouldn't end like a a b c ending promise

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

[Fireblader70]

The Angry One wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

In a game based on player choice, player agency trumps the writer's "artistic statement".
The creators of Dragon Age understood this.

Not Dragon Age 2, that's for sure...

Dragon Age 2 was certainly the beginning of the rot, of cinematics and rigid story taking over from player choice.
But even then, at least you felt you were in control of Hawke. It was the events around you that were ultimately set in stone and unsatisfying.
Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

Well, yeah, Dragon Age was never meant to be a 'cinematic experience' like Mass Effect. That's why I am more harsh with the former - because it was an homage to games originally, not movies. I am more forgiving of Mass Effect 3's lack of player agency because I never truly felt as myself in that series as I did in Dragon Age: Origins.

And Shepard was always an idiot the genophage is definitely not the same as the First Contact War...

[Lookout1390]

One of the many questions we would love to ask Mac and Casey

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

Is that really the only justification for how that ended we fought a human reaper and a race that was suppose to be extinct over 50 thousand years ago but you didn't see shepard give up or surrender then or give into harbinger because harbingers way is so much better and joker didn't leave the fight right he picked up shepard and squad?

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

Shepard is told that the cycle will end by the leader of the Reapers and believes it, instead of resisting it.
Yeah, that's the Shepard I played for 3 games. Sure. Whatever.

[JamieCOTC]

Fireblader70 wrote...

*snip*


I do wish there was more control in Mass Effect 3, but I was entertained enough with what I got. Now, if this happens again in another product, then I will start to frown.

Fair enough.  I was entertained as well and to be honest about 90% of what was on autopilot fit my main Shepard. And I'm with you in that I don't want to see this become a trend.  For me that's why it is important to speak up, so when they take the role playing out of a role playing game, that's when they lose me. 

[Udalango]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

Assured?  By the "Bad Guy"  Which either means he is lying or he is a slightly less competent bad guy than Doofenschmirtz from Phineas and Ferb.  Which is a cartoon for lil kids.   Ya thanks for that

[Jassu1979]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

You really swallowed that hook, line, and sinker, didn't you?

[LiarasShield]

Why give us a sense of being shepard the way we would be ourselves and then toss it or throw it away at the end it baffles me espically since this is a roleplaying game it defeats the roleplaying element at the end

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

Quanitity is not the issue. Choices that give suitable options to the player that reflect the themes of the game are.
DA:O gave you several options to complete the story, and gave an impression of what your choices throughout the game would affect afterwards.

ME3 gives you no choices. You must always behave like an idiot. You must always surrender to the Catalyst. You must always pick a colour. Joker will always strand his stupid ass on a jungle planet, and so on. Nothing that happens at the end of ME3 reflects what came before.

But I could argue that in DA:O:  You must always pick a ruler, you must always pick a martyr, you must always fight the Dragon on the roof.

Like I said before, the scope is too big too.  DA:O was a single game with much fewer choices than the entire ME series.

Also, you tell me how Shepard could have stopped the cycle at the end of ME3 in any other way.  Go ahead.  Give me one other path that Shepard could have taken that would have guaranteed the end of the cycle and the survival of life.  Shepard isn't being an idiot, he/she is only doing what he/she has to do in order to guarantee survival.

[Fireblader70]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

*snip*


I do wish there was more control in Mass Effect 3, but I was entertained enough with what I got. Now, if this happens again in another product, then I will start to frown.

Fair enough.  I was entertained as well and to be honest about 90% of what was on autopilot fit my main Shepard. And I'm with you in that I don't want to see this become a trend.  For me that's why it is important to speak up, so when they take the role playing out of a role playing game, that's when they lose me. 

Oh, yeah, definitely speak up about it. They essentially took what defined Mass Effect from other franchises and reduced it, which seems... baffling, to be honest. But, as I said, I can handle it just this once because so much was going on in the story.

But have no fear, I think they got the message there's certainly been enough outrage over it.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

But I could argue that in DA:O:  You must always pick a ruler, you must always pick a martyr, you must always fight the Dragon on the roof.

Like I said before, the scope is too big too.  DA:O was a single game with much fewer choices than the entire ME series.

An important part of player agency is the illusion of free will. In DA:O you do not feel shoehorned into these situations, but rather they come naturally as part as your role as the Warden.
You're always aware you must do things to unite the races against the Darkspawn. You know you must face down the Archdemon.
Conversely in ME3 you never expect that at the end, your only option will be to capitulate to the Reaper King.

Also, you tell me how Shepard could have stopped the cycle at the end of ME3 in any other way.  Go ahead.  Give me one other path that Shepard could have taken that would have guaranteed the end of the cycle and the survival of life.  Shepard isn't being an idiot, he/she is only doing what he/she has to do in order to guarantee survival.

The Catalyst is the self-proclaimed controller of the Reapers and appears to inhabit the Presidium tower.
Hence, contact Hackett and call in a dreadnought strike on the tower. Obliterate the Catalyst and send the Reapers into a frenzy of confusion, allowing a conventional victory.

That's just one possibility.

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Quanitity is not the issue. Choices that give suitable options to the player that reflect the themes of the game are.
DA:O gave you several options to complete the story, and gave an impression of what your choices throughout the game would affect afterwards.

ME3 gives you no choices. You must always behave like an idiot. You must always surrender to the Catalyst. You must always pick a colour. Joker will always strand his stupid ass on a jungle planet, and so on. Nothing that happens at the end of ME3 reflects what came before.

But I could argue that in DA:O:  You must always pick a ruler, you must always pick a martyr, you must always fight the Dragon on the roof.

Like I said before, the scope is too big too.  DA:O was a single game with much fewer choices than the entire ME series.

Also, you tell me how Shepard could have stopped the cycle at the end of ME3 in any other way.  Go ahead.  Give me one other path that Shepard could have taken that would have guaranteed the end of the cycle and the survival of life.  Shepard isn't being an idiot, he/she is only doing what he/she has to do in order to guarantee survival.

Through mass effect 1 and 2 and most of three it wasn't about stoping the cycle it was about stoping the reapers from destroying the galaxy and us

Only towards the end of me3 does the main goal or objective of stop the reapers get replaced by controlling synthetic destroying all synthetic life or combing synthetic life with organic life

Shepard just doing what the catalyst says when he controls the reapers um no I would rather have hackett fire on the crucible tell him its a trapt and then with max ems fight the reapers to thee end and win or lose it all with our forces and keeping the relays intact so everybody who survives if shepard forces win can go home and we don't have to question if everybody dies or starves or rots in space

[The Angry One]

LiarasShield wrote...

Through mass effect 1 and 2 and most of three it wasn't about stoping the cycle it was about stoping the reapers from destroying the galaxy and us

Well specifically it is about stopping the cycle.
But here's the thing. The Reapers are the cause of the cycle. No Reapers, no cycle.
What the Catalyst claims is just that, the paranoid claim of a genocidal maniac. We have no reason to believe a word it says.

[LiarasShield]

well I saw the objective of stop the reapers trying to get thorugh the paranoid council to tell them that hey the reapers are just around corner you need to get your crap together so that we can have a chance when they arrive