269 réponses à ce sujet

[LucasShark]

That's going to be a bit of a controvercial title, but honestly how else do you keep something on these boards, and it's more or less the case in my eyes.  Hear me out here:

On paper, EMS seems like a good way of tieing in all the disparet plot threads of ME1 and ME2 into a single system.  By assigning what amount to scores to each choice, the game simplifies requirements for the victory conditions.  This does however, introduce problems which ME3 doesn't really adress.

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS?  This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters.  All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale.  How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative?  And so forth.  It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

The second problem is one of choices versus problems: giving a choice a score, makes it not a choice.  This is going to sound weird to some but hold on, I'll explain.  A choice and a problem sound simmilar, but are very different things.  You know when you chose what colour Shepard's hair was?  That was a choice.  You know when you chose whether to let Balek live, or sacrafice the colony to chase him in bring down the sky?  That was a good example of a choice.  Yes, one is the paragon, one is the renegade, but it was a choice.  There wasn't really (maybe in some loot) an objectively better choice.  When it comes to EMS, we suddenly turn most things into problems, at least as far as the game is concerned.  If a choice yeilds two different EMS scores, the technically (again, only mechanically) the "right" one is the one which yields the higher score.  It's like choosing gear in Diablo, does this raise my DPS?  Yes: equip, no: sell or recover crafting materials.

The third problem is one of contrivance: aka, the scavenger hunts we get sent on in leu of sidequests.  Scanning the galaxy not only has a risk now, but has no real reward of on-foot missions.  Rather the game has to contrive reasons to have EMS note-worthy things just laying about on planets somewhere.  Possibly the most hillarious incodent of this was a bloody alliance dreadnought just kind of sitting out there.  "hey fellas!  You found me!  I guess I'll join the fight."  How many dreadnoughts were there in the Alliance Navy again?  Less than a dozen!  I'd imagine those were kept track of.

The last, and biggest problem for ME3's ending, is that it divorces these sub plots from the overall plot, and most importantly, its resolution.  There's a reason we don't see our war assets in action: they are at this point, only a number.  The only way the ending really could include EMS is with a mono-linier "good" to "bad" result, with arbitrary numbers marking each.  By choosing this model over a "suicide mission style" ending, ME3 effectively made a lot of our choices meaningless in its own conclusion.  In this respect, the ending was no longer a culmination of all our choices up to that point (what was promised by the way), but down to us at the last minute, Fable II style.  This was not what we were promised.

It's down to this fact; that ME3 effectively produces a conclusion to its own story rather than to the ME story, which is a major contributer in my mind to the backlash.

[Xellith]

EMS is only a good way as long as you arnt going to simpify it... which they did...

[LucasShark]

Xellith wrote...

EMS is only a good way as long as you arnt going to simpify it... which they did...

Indeed, admittedly any sort of thing would have been number reliant (as it's a game), but this is litterally one number.

[o Ventus]

I find it rather fascinating how my group of multiplayer characters is somehow worth more than the entire turian, asari, and quarian militaries.

Combined.

[LucasShark]

o Ventus wrote...

I find it rather fascinating how my group of multiplayer characters is somehow worth more than the entire turian, asari, and quarian militaries.

Combined.

Indeed, and if you think about it logically: every one of those N7 promotions is ONE guy (or girl, or intermediate, or robot), why doesn't Shepard just put on an eye-patch and form the ME universe avengers from this lot if they are that effective?

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...
On paper, EMS seems like a good way of tieing in all the disparet plot threads of ME1 and ME2 into a single system.  By assigning what amount to scores to each choice, the game simplifies requirements for the victory conditions.  This does however, introduce problems which ME3 doesn't really adress.

I think this gets the motivation for EMS wrong. It isn't so much about bringing ME1 and ME2 into the game, it's about integrating sidequests and scanning into the war.

When it comes to EMS, we suddenly turn most things into problems, at least as far as the game is concerned.  If a choice yeilds two different EMS scores, the technically (again, only mechanically) the "right" one is the one which yields the higher score.  It's like choosing gear in Diablo, does this raise my DPS?  Yes: equip, no: sell or recover crafting materials.

Some choices are better for the war effort than other choices. They should produce more War Assets. I think the problem with EMS is exactly the opposite -- the WA scores from different choices aren't different enough.

The third problem is one of contrivance: aka, the scavenger hunts we get sent on in leu of sidequests.  Scanning the galaxy not only has a risk now, but has no real reward of on-foot missions.  Rather the game has to contrive reasons to have EMS note-worthy things just laying about on planets somewhere.  Possibly the most hillarious incodent of this was a bloody alliance dreadnought just kind of sitting out there.  "hey fellas!  You found me!  I guess I'll join the fight."  How many dreadnoughts were there in the Alliance Navy again?  Less than a dozen!  I'd imagine those were kept track of.

Actually, those are cruisers. Though, yeah, it's a little clunky. But this isn't a problem with EMS. It's a problem with scanning.

The last, and biggest problem for ME3's ending, is that it divorces these sub plots from the overall plot, and most importantly, its resolution.  There's a reason we don't see our war assets in action: they are at this point, only a number.  The only way the ending really could include EMS is with a mono-linier "good" to "bad" result, with arbitrary numbers marking each.  By choosing this model over a "suicide mission style" ending, ME3 effectively made a lot of our choices meaningless in its own conclusion.  In this respect, the ending was no longer a culmination of all our choices up to that point (what was promised by the way), but down to us at the last minute, Fable II style.  This was not what we were promised.

How does EMS prevent them from doing that?

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:10 .

[dreman9999]

Do you not understand that choice inherently is about scoop no matter what you do? What we choose in the game is always going to have a question on how it effects us in the long term. The buffer is that we don't know the results of the choice at the time we make it.

That's why we can make choice to wiping out Feros in ME1 to see later is a consequence of EMS in ME3.
The fact we don't know the results immediately contradict the issue of the value of the choice. This is only an issue if you knew what end result of a choice before you choose it.

Your third point is pointless because it's an issue of exploration, not ems. The very concept of it a search and rescue mission. AKA a divide scattered galaxy due to the war...The forces of this war would also be scattered if the galaxy is scattered.

You last point is also not true at all. It makes the subplot part of the overall story because it becomes a value to defeating the reapers. The rest of point is a problem with priority earth, not ems. If Priority earth shown all our resources in action, this would not be an issue. This has nothing to do with ems.

How can action you do in past game becoming a value toward defeating the reapers mean the ME3 is only focus to it's own conclusion in stead of the entire series when the series story is about stopping the reapers from day one?

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

Do you not understand that choice inherently is about scoop no matter what you do? What we choose in the game is always going to have a question on how it effects us in the long term. The buffer is that we don't know the results of the choice at the time we make it.

That's why we can make choice to wiping out Feros in ME1 to see later is a consequence of EMS in ME3.
The fact we don't know the results immediately contradict the issue of the value of the choice. This is only an issue if you knew what end result of a choice before you choose it.

Your third point is pointless because it's an issue of exploration, not ems. The very concept of it a search and rescue mission. AKA a divide scattered galaxy due to the war...The forces of this war would also be scattered if the galaxy is scattered.

You last point is also not true at all. It makes the subplot part of the overall story because it becomes a value to defeating the reapers. The rest of point is a problem with priority earth, not ems. If Priority earth shown all our resources in action, this would not be an issue. This has nothing to do with ems.

How can action you do in past game becoming a value toward defeating the reapers mean the ME3 is only focus to it's own conclusion in stead of the entire series when the series story is about stopping the reapers from day one?

Your first paragraphs... I don't see where your problem is, this is precisely what I am talking about.  In previous choices, like Feros, and like the suicide mission, the choices were given weight because we weren't given an outright numerical value to them immediately.  We had to see how things played out, well beyond the point of reloading a save to do it again.

Boy was your issue with my third point... bizarre and twisted.

As for the last two, well no, that IS NOT part of the ending.  It's part of the ending in the same way that the story of how I earned 5 dollars is relevant to me buying an icecream sandwitch with those 5 dollars.  5 other dollars would have done the job as well, and the original story is rendered inconsequencial.

[LucasShark]

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
On paper, EMS seems like a good way of tieing in all the disparet plot threads of ME1 and ME2 into a single system.  By assigning what amount to scores to each choice, the game simplifies requirements for the victory conditions.  This does however, introduce problems which ME3 doesn't really adress.

I think this gets the motivation for EMS wrong. It isn't so much about bringing ME1 and ME2 into the game, it's about integrating sidequests and scanning into the war.

When it comes to EMS, we suddenly turn most things into problems, at least as far as the game is concerned.  If a choice yeilds two different EMS scores, the technically (again, only mechanically) the "right" one is the one which yields the higher score.  It's like choosing gear in Diablo, does this raise my DPS?  Yes: equip, no: sell or recover crafting materials.

Some choices are better for the war effort than other choices. They should produce more War Assets. I think the problem with EMS is exactly the opposite -- the WA scores from different choices aren't different enough.

The third problem is one of contrivance: aka, the scavenger hunts we get sent on in leu of sidequests.  Scanning the galaxy not only has a risk now, but has no real reward of on-foot missions.  Rather the game has to contrive reasons to have EMS note-worthy things just laying about on planets somewhere.  Possibly the most hillarious incodent of this was a bloody alliance dreadnought just kind of sitting out there.  "hey fellas!  You found me!  I guess I'll join the fight."  How many dreadnoughts were there in the Alliance Navy again?  Less than a dozen!  I'd imagine those were kept track of.

Actually, those are cruisers. Though, yeah, it's a little clunky. But this isn't a problem with EMS. It's a problem with scanning.

The last, and biggest problem for ME3's ending, is that it divorces these sub plots from the overall plot, and most importantly, its resolution.  There's a reason we don't see our war assets in action: they are at this point, only a number.  The only way the ending really could include EMS is with a mono-linier "good" to "bad" result, with arbitrary numbers marking each.  By choosing this model over a "suicide mission style" ending, ME3 effectively made a lot of our choices meaningless in its own conclusion.  In this respect, the ending was no longer a culmination of all our choices up to that point (what was promised by the way), but down to us at the last minute, Fable II style.  This was not what we were promised.

How does EMS prevent them from doing that?

To itemize:

To the first, I wasn't proposing their motivation, I was just saying I could see why they would do it, not much else.

Your second misses the point entirely.

To the third, thankyou for aknowledging that, but if it has to be that contrived, why impliment it that way at all?

As to how EMS prevents ME3 from using an intigrated system: it doesn't really, it just makes the alternative incredibly, mind-blowingly easy in comparison.  Why would they do it?  Besides, actually making something worth a damn I mean.

Just from a cost standpoint alone: making a "good" to "bad" scale based on one number is far cheaper than making war assets  and choices matter.

[Hudathan]

They should have kept EMS as a hidden formula rather than trying to quantify it with arbitrary values. All it did was reveal the 'seams' in the RPG system so to speak and contributed nothing to the immersion of the story. I like seeing codex entries about our war assets as we gather them, but how everything adds up should remain open to our imaginations as we play.

Dragon Age: Origins did this very well. You had the choice of donating as much gold and material to the various factions as possible with no immediate personal gain other than knowing that you were giving everyone a better fighting chance against the common enemy. It's much more immersive and believable that way than to see a progress bar.

Modifié par Hudathan, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:27 .

[ZombieGambit]

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

Modifié par ZombieGambit, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:28 .

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...
To itemize:

To the first, I wasn't proposing their motivation, I was just saying I could see why they would do it, not much else.

Saying "I could see why they would do it" isn't discussing their motivation?

And motivations matter. If you want to get rid of a system you either have to make a case for its job not being worth doing or come up with an alternative way to do that system's job. You've done neither.

Your second misses the point entirely.

I'm not missing your point, I'm denying it. 

To the third, thankyou for aknowledging that, but if it has to be that contrived, why impliment it that way at all?

Maybe scanning and most of the galaxy map should have been yanked altogether. I would have been OK with that. But if they don't yank scanning, why are we scanning? 

As to how EMS prevents ME3 from using an intigrated system: it doesn't really, it just makes the alternative incredibly, mind-blowingly easy in comparison.  Why would they do it?  Besides, actually making something worth a damn I mean.

Just from a cost standpoint alone: making a "good" to "bad" scale based on one number is far cheaper than making war assets  and choices matter.

This is just silly. EMS doesn't make it possible to avoid doing a complicated end sequence with lots of different assets being shown. They could have just done something like ME1, where you get the exact same endgame regardless of what you did in the earlier parts of the game. Or KotOR or ME2, where the vast bulk of the endgame is the same.

[LucasShark]

Hudathan wrote...

They should have kept EMS as a hidden formula rather than trying to quantify it with arbitrary values. All it did was reveal the 'seams' in the RPG system so to speak and contributed nothing to the immersion of the story. I like seeing codex entries about our war assets as we gather them, but how everything adds up should remain open to our imaginations as we play.

Dragon Age: Origins did this very well. You had the choice of donating as much gold and material to the various factions as possible with no immediate personal gain other than knowing that you were giving everyone a better fighting chance against the common enemy. It's much more immersive and believable that way than to see a progress bar.

Exactly, ME2's "last stand" of the crew holding back the collectors was also number based when you get right down to it, but we never saw it.  Instead, to the player the difference was made by "who" you left behind to keep the others safe, and who you took with you, not how many defense power points they gave the team.

[LucasShark]

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

Precisely, what made ME2 different is that the choices which determined the ending's "play out", weren't immediately evident.  You chose whether to recruit people at all, whether to do their loyalty missions, and where to apply their specializations, even whether you upgraded the Normandy or not.  All of these are A) not givena  numerical value and occure well in advance of the consequences from them.

[LucasShark]

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
To itemize:

To the first, I wasn't proposing their motivation, I was just saying I could see why they would do it, not much else.

Saying "I could see why they would do it" isn't discussing their motivation?

And motivations matter. If you want to get rid of a system you either have to make a case for its job not being worth doing or come up with an alternative way to do that system's job. You've done neither.

Your second misses the point entirely.

I'm not missing your point, I'm denying it. 

To the third, thankyou for aknowledging that, but if it has to be that contrived, why impliment it that way at all?

Maybe scanning and most of the galaxy map should have been yanked altogether. I would have been OK with that. But if they don't yank scanning, why are we scanning? 

As to how EMS prevents ME3 from using an intigrated system: it doesn't really, it just makes the alternative incredibly, mind-blowingly easy in comparison.  Why would they do it?  Besides, actually making something worth a damn I mean.

Just from a cost standpoint alone: making a "good" to "bad" scale based on one number is far cheaper than making war assets  and choices matter.

This is just silly. EMS doesn't make it possible to avoid doing a complicated end sequence with lots of different assets being shown. They could have just done something like ME1, where you get the exact same endgame regardless of what you did in the earlier parts of the game. Or KotOR or ME2, where the vast bulk of the endgame is the same.

And you didn't even try to get it that time...

[JBPBRC]

Zaeed is worth half of the Dreadnought Kwunu, the main armament consisting of nothing but Thanix cannons, and described by the Turians as capable of charring a planet three times over single-handedly.

Yeah, EMS makes no sense.

Not that Zaeed isn't that much of a badass mind you. But the system in general.

Modifié par JBPBRC, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:45 .

[AlanC9]

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

Well, that's the thing. If the EMS requirement for the better endings is too strict then sidequests are effectively mandatory. Not a big problem in ME2 since who lived or died on the SM wasn't as big a deal.

[LucasShark]

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

Well, that's the thing. If the EMS requirement for the better endings is too strict then sidequests are effectively mandatory. Not a big problem in ME2 since who lived or died on the SM wasn't as big a deal.

Wow...

1) you think making side-quests meaningful is a bad thing?  After going off on me about how EMS "makes them relevant"? 
2) "characters dieing isn't a big deal", in a primarily character based RPG? 

... I have no words...

[ZombieGambit]

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

Well, that's the thing. If the EMS requirement for the better endings is too strict then sidequests are effectively mandatory. Not a big problem in ME2 since who lived or died on the SM wasn't as big a deal.

Sidequests were never mandatory in ME1 or 2, they just made the playthrough and the next game more interesting, but they pretty much mandatory to get a good EMS (at least before EC) and apart from boring fetch gameplay they added nothing.

[Ender Ghost]

Hmmm... I like the concept, but I think they were trying to make mass effect more accessable for people who were new to the series but ended up ruining both the story and the EMS system.

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...
Wow...

1) you think making side-quests meaningful is a bad thing?  After going off on me about how EMS "makes them relevant"?  

I'd be fine with the proposal myself. I think the entire sidequest concept is bad and should be removed from most CRPGs. If you think mandatory sidequests would go over well, I'm all for it. I just didn't think it would fly with the rest of the audience.

Edit: maybe I wasn't clear before. I see sidequests and exploration as the fundamental problem here. EMS is an attempt to solve that problem.

2) "characters dieing isn't a big deal", in a primarily character based RPG? 

Compared to the fate of the entire galaxy, or even individual races? It isn't important. It just isn't.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:58 .

[LucasShark]

Ender Ghost wrote...

Hmmm... I like the concept, but I think they were trying to make mass effect more accessable for people who were new to the series but ended up ruining both the story and the EMS system.

Ah yes... the atracting a new audience 2/3rds the way through a continuing story... I hate that so much...

[Ender Ghost]

LucasShark wrote...

Ender Ghost wrote...

Hmmm... I like the concept, but I think they were trying to make mass effect more accessable for people who were new to the series but ended up ruining both the story and the EMS system.

Ah yes... the atracting a new audience 2/3rds the way through a continuing story... I hate that so much...

Why did they even do that, "Oh hey, maybe we should ruin the experience for the people who are playing the last game first." I mean really, what were they smoking when they made that decision.

(Casey Hudson picked renegade obviously...)

[InvincibleHero]

Hudathan wrote...

They should have kept EMS as a hidden formula rather than trying to quantify it with arbitrary values. All it did was reveal the 'seams' in the RPG system so to speak and contributed nothing to the immersion of the story. I like seeing codex entries about our war assets as we gather them, but how everything adds up should remain open to our imaginations as we play.

Dragon Age: Origins did this very well. You had the choice of donating as much gold and material to the various factions as possible with no immediate personal gain other than knowing that you were giving everyone a better fighting chance against the common enemy. It's much more immersive and believable that way than to see a progress bar.

You are forgetting you get lots of XP for donating things. I gained many levels trading the very cheap potion making materials. Buy 99 healing herbs from elves for a silver I think and get 990 XP.

It didn't bother me people like to keep score. It is a gameplay mechanic. I am never immersed enough to fail to realize I am not playing a game. I think that is overrated or mistated. Yes it can engross you to spend many hours playing but that is all. It is not real and I hesitate to think people actually think it is yet that is the claim of immersion. You feel it is real.

[MegaSovereign]

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.