292 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Gweedotk wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

this was our launch trailer back before
the "ea-ification" of the series.  back when mass effect was being made
for scifi fans, not general audiences. 

notice
the tagline?  The phrase they were SELLING the game on?  Listen to the
distress call and pay attention to shepard's actions.  thats what the
first game was selling us, a grey area decision focused experience.

Something I had noticed as well. The first game came across as incomplete and I recall reading somewhere that it was "rushed." Something I would certainly blame EA for, among the attempt at appealing the mainstream rather than a select audience.

ea wasnt involved in the first game, microsoft game studios published it.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

What I'm worried about is taking down Sovereign (along with the army of geth it's brought along). Which, considering it's a complete unknown yet claims and appears to be vastly superior in terms of technology to anything we have, it a daunting propect. Will we need the entire fleet? Can we possibly do it on 66% strength? Who knows? Shepard certainly wouldn't. That's why it's a tough call and not a 'good v bad' choice.

Can you do it without the Destiny Ascension?

If you really want the choice to be tough, it can be, but the results rather speak for themselves.

the destiny ascension never even did anything the entire trilogy.  how do those "results" "speak" for "themselves"?

[Xilizhra]

uh you're wrong in a few places dude

There is no indication that sovereign has or is in jeopardy of sustaining ANY damage at the point where you kill saren and lock out the citadel. Sovereign mind melds with saren to undo the lock, and when you kill that saren again it braindrains Sovereign and all his systems go down. The only reason the normandy is able to blow him up is because his SHEILDS go down. thats why he goes limp and lets go of the citadel. Killing mindmeld saren allowed you to kill sovereign. he wasnt "weakened by the battle" nothing in the cinematics and dialogue imply anything of the sort. soverign just tore through the battle, even after you open the arms the fleet is all "Dude we're shooting sovereign a whole bunch but its not workin and we're kind of losing here"

Yes, and if Sovereign could have undone the lock itself, there'd have been no reason to jeopardize itself by possessing Saren. That was my point.

[eye basher]

Most heroes are white hats and the good outcome is not always the right one.

[Ice Cold J]

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way. And that's exactly what this is.

The conflicts and the story are better for Shepard being a hero. Not worse.

As much as I've disagreed with your posts in the past, I agree 100% with this.

[AlanC9]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Basically, what I'm seeing from this thread is that certain people want everything to be grey, grey, grey and choices are only meaningful if you feel like utter crap afterwards because you had to sacrifice something.

this was our launch trailer back before the "ea-ification" of the series.  back when mass effect was being made for scifi fans, not general audiences. 

notice the tagline?  The phrase they were SELLING the game on?  Listen to the distress call and pay attention to shepard's actions.  thats what the first game was selling us, a grey area decision focused experience.

As I read KLGChaos, he's opposed to that vision of game decision-making in the first place.

I'm with you, FWIW. Fortunately for me, I never saw the "distress call" trailer until after playing ME1, or I would have been bitterly disappointed in the game. (As usual, paying no attention to marketing worked out well for me.)

[AlanC9]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Gweedotk wrote...

Something I had noticed as well. The first game came across as incomplete and I recall reading somewhere that it was "rushed." Something I would certainly blame EA for, among the attempt at appealing the mainstream rather than a select audience.

ea wasnt involved in the first game, microsoft game studios published it.

All games are rushed to some extent, unless the company has some cash cow that subsidizes everything else they do. Before it was EA telling Bio what their deadlines were, it was Bio's own bank accounts telling them what their deadlines were.

[shodiswe]

The story of ME2 does matter, if Legion deis then you can't make peace because the Geth don't trust you enough for that, loosing Tali also makes it alot harder, not sure if it possible without Tali.

I'm not sure how it should have been made harder, people will still accomplish what they think is the optimal outcome... Unless you thrown in arcade minigames(like in the citadel DLC) and make them affect your endings.

Modifié par shodiswe, 13 mars 2013 - 05:38 .

[shodiswe]

Unless the game requiers one fail to make soemtihng else succed then.. im not sure how once could make it harder to achive.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

uh you're wrong in a few places dude

There is no indication that sovereign has or is in jeopardy of sustaining ANY damage at the point where you kill saren and lock out the citadel. Sovereign mind melds with saren to undo the lock, and when you kill that saren again it braindrains Sovereign and all his systems go down. The only reason the normandy is able to blow him up is because his SHEILDS go down. thats why he goes limp and lets go of the citadel. Killing mindmeld saren allowed you to kill sovereign. he wasnt "weakened by the battle" nothing in the cinematics and dialogue imply anything of the sort. soverign just tore through the battle, even after you open the arms the fleet is all "Dude we're shooting sovereign a whole bunch but its not workin and we're kind of losing here"

Yes, and if Sovereign could have undone the lock itself, there'd have been no reason to jeopardize itself by possessing Saren. That was my point.

coulda woulda shoulda

sovereign couldnt undo the lock himself, he had to possess saren to do it.  too bad for him it backfired woops!!

[Xilizhra]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

uh you're wrong in a few places dude

There is no indication that sovereign has or is in jeopardy of sustaining ANY damage at the point where you kill saren and lock out the citadel. Sovereign mind melds with saren to undo the lock, and when you kill that saren again it braindrains Sovereign and all his systems go down. The only reason the normandy is able to blow him up is because his SHEILDS go down. thats why he goes limp and lets go of the citadel. Killing mindmeld saren allowed you to kill sovereign. he wasnt "weakened by the battle" nothing in the cinematics and dialogue imply anything of the sort. soverign just tore through the battle, even after you open the arms the fleet is all "Dude we're shooting sovereign a whole bunch but its not workin and we're kind of losing here"

Yes, and if Sovereign could have undone the lock itself, there'd have been no reason to jeopardize itself by possessing Saren. That was my point.

coulda woulda shoulda

sovereign couldnt undo the lock himself, he had to possess saren to do it.  too bad for him it backfired woops!!

Precisely. Meaning that the galaxy was in no imminent danger from Reaperification and saving the DA was perfectly safe.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

shodiswe wrote...

Unless the game requiers one fail to make soemtihng else succed then.. im not sure how once could make it harder to achive.

making it something you have to figure out, rather than making the solution feel easy and "Oh we kind of rushed the suicide mission.  thane wasnt useful for anything despite being a focus during the game."


I imagine the reason why the ship upgrades ended up the way they were went like this:
Cinematics team: "Hey we got all these sweet animations of the crew getting killed super hard by the collectors for the end of the game finale."
Ship Upgrades team: "Oh **** we're supposed to make a system for these to work uh....just rush it out in the cheapest way possible we have to have this ready to ship tomarrow."

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

uh you're wrong in a few places dude

There is no indication that sovereign has or is in jeopardy of sustaining ANY damage at the point where you kill saren and lock out the citadel. Sovereign mind melds with saren to undo the lock, and when you kill that saren again it braindrains Sovereign and all his systems go down. The only reason the normandy is able to blow him up is because his SHEILDS go down. thats why he goes limp and lets go of the citadel. Killing mindmeld saren allowed you to kill sovereign. he wasnt "weakened by the battle" nothing in the cinematics and dialogue imply anything of the sort. soverign just tore through the battle, even after you open the arms the fleet is all "Dude we're shooting sovereign a whole bunch but its not workin and we're kind of losing here"

Yes, and if Sovereign could have undone the lock itself, there'd have been no reason to jeopardize itself by possessing Saren. That was my point.

coulda woulda shoulda

sovereign couldnt undo the lock himself, he had to possess saren to do it.  too bad for him it backfired woops!!

Precisely. Meaning that the galaxy was in no imminent danger from Reaperification and saving the DA was perfectly safe.

I dont think you realise that "Saving the Destiny Ascension" meant "Use our own ships as meat shields"  Did you really look at those cutscenes?  I know the space battle cinematics were unclear and really jump-cutty but thats what that decision meant. 

[KLGChaos]

AlanC9 wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Basically, what I'm seeing from this thread is that certain people want everything to be grey, grey, grey and choices are only meaningful if you feel like utter crap afterwards because you had to sacrifice something.

this was our launch trailer back before the "ea-ification" of the series.  back when mass effect was being made for scifi fans, not general audiences. 

notice the tagline?  The phrase they were SELLING the game on?  Listen to the distress call and pay attention to shepard's actions.  thats what the first game was selling us, a grey area decision focused experience.

As I read KLGChaos, he's opposed to that vision of game decision-making in the first place.

I'm with you, FWIW. Fortunately for me, I never saw the "distress call" trailer until after playing ME1, or I would have been bitterly disappointed in the game. (As usual, paying no attention to marketing worked out well for me.)

I'm not completely opposed to it-- I just don't think it should dominate everything the way it seems to nowadays. Not every big decision you make should have other bad consequences behind it just to make it a tougher choice. That's as unrealistic as everything always ending happily. There's always a wide spectrum in real life, but everyone tends to focus on either just black and white or just grey. But for the record, if I'm forced to choose between the two, I do prefer black and white over pure grey.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 13 mars 2013 - 06:03 .

[Reever]

I think it should have been a bit more difficult to keep everyone alive, but what the OP suggested was waaay too much.

Modifié par BlueDemonX, 13 mars 2013 - 06:11 .

[draken-heart]

Here is problem OP. EVERYTHING links back to ME3: if Thane is dead, and Kirahee is dead, Salarian Councilor is dead, and you are left with probably no Salarian war assets. No legion=No peace between the Quarians and Geth. Basically you are saying that Shepard needs to die for the trilogy to be complete.

People no like that. People would have quit Bioware games after ME2 if that were to happen.

Your idea does not work out in the end.

Modifié par draken-heart, 13 mars 2013 - 06:25 .

[Ownedbacon]

Bill Casey wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

<snip>

This forum has shown you it's full of people ready to believe in good...

I read this in a Bale Batman voice. lol

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 13 mars 2013 - 06:29 .

[Xilizhra]

I dont think you realise that "Saving the Destiny Ascension" meant "Use our own ships as meat shields" Did you really look at those cutscenes? I know the space battle cinematics were unclear and really jump-cutty but thats what that decision meant.

No, it's "engage the geth fleet." No ships are being unnecessarily sacrificed.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

KLGChaos wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Basically, what I'm seeing from this thread is that certain people want everything to be grey, grey, grey and choices are only meaningful if you feel like utter crap afterwards because you had to sacrifice something.

this was our launch trailer back before the "ea-ification" of the series.  back when mass effect was being made for scifi fans, not general audiences. 

notice the tagline?  The phrase they were SELLING the game on?  Listen to the distress call and pay attention to shepard's actions.  thats what the first game was selling us, a grey area decision focused experience.

As I read KLGChaos, he's opposed to that vision of game decision-making in the first place.

I'm with you, FWIW. Fortunately for me, I never saw the "distress call" trailer until after playing ME1, or I would have been bitterly disappointed in the game. (As usual, paying no attention to marketing worked out well for me.)

I'm not completely opposed to it-- I just don't think it should dominate everything the way it seems to nowadays. Not every big decision you make should have other bad consequences behind it just to make it a tougher choice. That's as unrealistic as everything always ending happily. There's always a wide spectrum in real life, but everyone tends to focus on either just black and white or just grey. But for the record, if I'm forced to choose between the two, I do prefer black and white over pure grey.

Whats realistic is for the developers to write decisions based on how they naturally feel in the fiction.  if at any point they say "Yeah but we have to think about the user end experience" to either "make it more difficult" or "make it more satisfying" then its just fake and feels like meddling.  (there are plenty of lame contrived decisions as there are stupid happy ones.  needs more actual moments)

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

I dont think you realise that "Saving the Destiny Ascension" meant "Use our own ships as meat shields" Did you really look at those cutscenes? I know the space battle cinematics were unclear and really jump-cutty but thats what that decision meant.

No, it's "engage the geth fleet." No ships are being unnecessarily sacrificed.

thats the decision prompt, but the dialogue surorunding that prompt, from your squad and joker, is there to tell you that "if you do this we'll lose human ships".

If you bring garrus and he's on the renegade side of the squad moral slider his line is, more or less, "You have to tell them to hold back, we need to keep our ships safe for the battle with sovereign, even if it means letting the council die."   For someone paying attention to all the elements the game is feeding them, they feel the weight of their decision.  (There are actually two choices that result in the council's death, a neutral and renegade option)


i saved the council because "The galaxy is going to need leaders, even if it means sacrificing human lives to do it." at the time I fully understood what the game was asking of me.  (they practically explain it twice before the actual choice)

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Bill Casey wrote...
This forum has shown you it's full of people ready to believe in good...

good = paragon
bad = renegade


only bad people pick renegade, its the bad choice.  paragon is never imoral.  renegade is the antichrist.  they didnt even need to call it neutral terms like paragon and renegade they should have just called it "good points" and "evil points"

[KLGChaos]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Basically, what I'm seeing from this thread is that certain people want everything to be grey, grey, grey and choices are only meaningful if you feel like utter crap afterwards because you had to sacrifice something.

this was our launch trailer back before the "ea-ification" of the series.  back when mass effect was being made for scifi fans, not general audiences. 

notice the tagline?  The phrase they were SELLING the game on?  Listen to the distress call and pay attention to shepard's actions.  thats what the first game was selling us, a grey area decision focused experience.

As I read KLGChaos, he's opposed to that vision of game decision-making in the first place.

I'm with you, FWIW. Fortunately for me, I never saw the "distress call" trailer until after playing ME1, or I would have been bitterly disappointed in the game. (As usual, paying no attention to marketing worked out well for me.)

I'm not completely opposed to it-- I just don't think it should dominate everything the way it seems to nowadays. Not every big decision you make should have other bad consequences behind it just to make it a tougher choice. That's as unrealistic as everything always ending happily. There's always a wide spectrum in real life, but everyone tends to focus on either just black and white or just grey. But for the record, if I'm forced to choose between the two, I do prefer black and white over pure grey.

Whats realistic is for the developers to write decisions based on how they naturally feel in the fiction.  if at any point they say "Yeah but we have to think about the user end experience" to either "make it more difficult" or "make it more satisfying" then its just fake and feels like meddling.  (there are plenty of lame contrived decisions as there are stupid happy ones.  needs more actual moments)

When creating any work that you're going to sell to a mass public consumer base, you HAVE to think about the user end experience. If you're making art soley for yourself, it's fine to not care what the people who buy your work think. But if you're trying to make a profit on something, if you fail to think of your customers, then you lose money-- when you lose money, the next project doesn't happen because this one wasn't successful. Plus, the thing about "art" is that there is no right or wrong interpretation. Art, by nature, is a subjective medium based on opinion-- and opinion will invariably lead to criticism. It's part and parcel of the whole thing.

As for the Paragon = Good, Renegade = Bad, I say untrue. I played a Renegade who was rough, but more like a Dirty Harry type character. He treated his friends well, only killed those who he felt deserved it (like Fist), and prefered to use intimidation and cold reasoning instead of just going around killing everything he thought got in his way. He tried to find a more peaceful solution if possible, even if he went about it in a roughshod manner.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

KLGChaos wrote...

When creating any work that you're going to sell to a mass public consumer base, you HAVE to think about the user end experience. If you're making art soley for yourself, it's fine to not care what the people who buy your work think. But if you're trying to make a profit on something, if you fail to think of your customers, then you lose money-- when you lose money, the next project doesn't happen because this one wasn't successful. Plus, the thing about "art" is that there is no right or wrong interpretation. Art, by nature, is a subjective medium based on opinion-- and opinion will invariably lead to criticism. It's part and parcel of the whole thing.

As for the Paragon = Good, Renegade = Bad, I say untrue. I played a Renegade who was rough, but more like a Dirty Harry type character. He treated his friends well, only killed those who he felt deserved it (like Fist), and prefered to use intimidation and cold reasoning instead of just going around killing everything he thought got in his way. He tried to find a more peaceful solution if possible, even if he went about it in a roughshod manner.

This is the most depressing line of thinking and its the kind that makes me want to kill myself.

if we didnt have people who cared more about what they wanted to make than what focus tests show people want then we wouldn't have Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, we wouldn't have Half Life 2, we wouldn't have Telltale's The Walking Dead game.  If all you do is cave in to people then your game is going to be as shallow and unfullfilling as that. 

Creating popcorn media just means that, while people will eat it up  when it's fresh, they'll end up throwing it away and forgetting about it when they're done.  In the end you're just left with this big waste of time that nobody cares about a year from now.  In order for something to mean something it has to have inherent worth.  comprimising the integrity of a product diminishes it because you've chipped away natural elements to make room for what is almost 4th wall communication with the audience.  

How many focus tested games come out a year that no one even remembers the following year?  Will anyone give two shtts about god of war ascension in a month?  Will anyone care about Gears of War: Who Cares Prequel by christmas? 

Look at the pandering garbage being put out by holleywood these days.  so much of it is forgettable ripoffs of other movies and concepts that people dont even remember anything about when they leave the theatre because it didnt engage them.  all it did was eat up their time by shoving popcorn in their face.


If all you want from your product is MONEY then you'll sure get that, but your product wont get anything else.  not recognition, not reverence, not even a place in someone's memories.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 07:44 .

[Xilizhra]

Look at the pandering garbage being put out by holleywood these days. so much of it is forgettable ripoffs of other movies and concepts that people dont even remember anything about when they leave the theatre because it didnt engage them. all it did was eat up their time by shoving popcorn in their face.

What, you don't think that's been a majority of their creations throughout the entirety of its existence? The only older movies we remember are the ones that were actually worth being remembered, hence many conflate "older" with "better," mistakenly.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

Look at the pandering garbage being put out by holleywood these days. so much of it is forgettable ripoffs of other movies and concepts that people dont even remember anything about when they leave the theatre because it didnt engage them. all it did was eat up their time by shoving popcorn in their face.

What, you don't think that's been a majority of their creations throughout the entirety of its existence? The only older movies we remember are the ones that were actually worth being remembered, hence many conflate "older" with "better," mistakenly.

just because its been happening for a while doesnt invalidate the point.  its still schlock and we shouldn't excuse schlock just because its tradition either.  We're getting big budget games that conflate to desperately pleading for the people's dollar by giving us what we want without having any backbone of its own.  its an enjoyable experience, like getting a lapdance from a hooker, but a forgettable one where you feel a distinct lack of respect for the hooker and yourself the week after.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 08:15 .