197 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think that that's why it works so well. Had it been released with the game, it wouldn't have made a lick of sense. As the Forbes writer said, it only works as post-release content. As such, it came across as the game sort of saying "Thanks for all the memories." Which may sound sappy, but I really enjoyed the Citadel DLC and this I feel is why.


Cheers.

Allan

I'd take that a step further and say Citadel works mainly because people needed a ray of sunlight after the endings, where no matter how many War Assets you gather "the darkness cannot be breached"  It's only in retrospect, and a backlash that continues to this day, that a Citadel DLC really makes sense.  Fans needed to smile at Grunt's antics again.  Laugh at Javik's observations at "primitives" or just listen to Mordin sing one more time.  For those who find the endings depressingly bad, this is one last chance to smile.  It's more than "thanks fro all the memories" it's a chance to dull painful memories.

Heck there are already questions about how to arrange events to imagine the party as postgame, or even to mod things so make it a postgame dlc.

[Wulfram]

If you think of the Reaper War as a real war taking months, I don't think it's unreasonable for Shep and co to take a brief time to let their hair down while the Normandy gets patched up. So in universe I don't have a problem.

If you think of Mass Effect as like a TV series - which in terms of things like duration and narrative complexity it's closer to than a movie - then I don't think a breather episode or two is out of place. Star Trek:DS9 had a pretty apocalyptic war going on, but they still had an episode where they played baseball against some Vulcans, and an episode where the crew all get together to carry out a heist in a holodeck program.

And as a standalone burst of nostalgia, it certainly works quite well.

But I guess the DLC might not work as part of a concerted playthrough of the entire game. I can't comment until I get to it. Though the fact that it spurred me on to have a replay of the entire series says good things.

[macrocarl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I wouldn't read too much into it as being "you just wanted a happy ending" (note, I have only read the OP)

In my opinion there wasn't really a "consensus" on what specifically made people upset with the ending (IIRC there were about 3 different themes that came up a lot, and I felt many people fit on it on a continuum in some way, like a place on a triangle with each point being the particular destination). One thing that I did feel was pretty consistent, however, is that in large part players had a strong emotional investment into the game, most specifically the characters (there were other aspects as well, but I don't remember them being as common).

Contextually within the story, Citadel's story doesn't really make much sense. But I found, while playing it myself, that there's a sort of meta aspect to it. Most (I dare say the vast majority) of the players that play it will have already experienced the ending.  So as players when they play this, even though narratively it's "before" the ending, for the player it's still "after they've experienced all the other content in the game."  It's literally the last piece of content they will experience within the ME trilogy.

I found Citadel wasn't so much design to go on an adventure with Shepard. It was more to go on an adventure with the person playing the game. I think that's why it goes with breaking the 4th wall as much as it does. It invites the player along on a trip where they poke fun at the various memes that exist in the franchise, and delves more into spending time with the characters within the game as much as a player, rather than exclusively Shepard.


So rather than "lets go on an adventure with Shepard" it more said to me "Lets go on an adventure together with Allan."


I think that that's why it works so well. Had it been released with the game, it wouldn't have made a lick of sense. As the Forbes writer said, it only works as post-release content. As such, it came across as the game sort of saying "Thanks for all the memories." Which may sound sappy, but I really enjoyed the Citadel DLC and this I feel is why.


Cheers.

Allan

Totally agree.

[AnsinJung]

It sounds like the DLC is out of context because it's actually good, what fans want, etc. In the bigger picture, the rest of ME3 is what's really out of context, while the DLC was getting back to what made people love the series in the first place.

[DaveT]

Two points:

TJBartlemus wrote...

Imagine it: You’re working on the hard-hitting ending for Dragon Age 4 that includes every character dying. It’s sad, but that’s the story the game needs to tell, and furthermore, it fits the tone and characters you’ve created in the game up to that point. But then a suit wanders up and tells you the ending has to be happy, because the suit learned from the success of Citadel that people like happy endings.

"Artists" care way too much about the integrity of their stories.  What so many of them miss is that there are millions of really fantastic stories that are artistically pure sitting unread on hard drives throughout the world.  What makes a story a success is the readers not the authors.  What makes a story a commercial success is creating characters that the readers like and will want to continue reading about.  This is why J.K. Rowling is so much richer than Anne Rice. If the "story the game needs to tell" requires the death of all of the characters that the audience has become emotionally attached to, then I can predict definative commercial failure, and well deserved unemployment for the writer.  There is a reason why 60% of the popular songs are written by one woman in NYC; she has a knack for understanding what people want to hear.  And most importantly what they will pay $.99 to download from iTunes.

Second point:

Your accusation of the DLC being "feel good" is targetted only on the party and the aftermath.  The initial mission, IMO, is the best single player mission they have yet designed for the entire series.  The concept of stealing a weapon and moving through a Blade Runner type of city on your own while being hunted was amazingly well done, and very far from "feel good".  The fact that the DLC includes what is considered the hardest fight of the entire series is also a pretty strong statement about the production values for the DLC.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Kabooooom wrote...
This. Finally someone gets it. I do disagree about where to play it though. After trying it post coup, post Rannoch and end game: it is best post Rannoch. It just feels right there. It's the only place the Normandy has really 'seen action', it is following on the heels of a major victory rather than a relative defeat (Coup- Citadel attacked, Udina dead, general mood is somber), and it improves pacing dramatically. Omega should be played right after the Coup, Citadel right after Rannoch in my opinion. Try it, and you'll see.

Just curious, though - how do you reconcile that with the fact that you get the Thessia mission right after finishing Rannoch? I'm asking because I otherwise agree with you, but it seems like doing it then means one of two things:(a) Hackett orders the Normandy into drydock right when the asari have told Shepard that Thessia is in big trouble and there may be an artifact there that will help complete the Crucible; or ( Shepard blows off the meeting with the asari councilor for a few days in order to have sushi with Joker and then throw a party after the clone is defeated.

(I know, a lot of games have these conceits about passage of time, including ME1, but ME3 seemed like it was trying to rectify that to some extent.)

[CaIIisto]

I played it after Sanctuary. Not only do you then have all the squaddies lined up to appear, but narratively I just imagine that we're in for a refit while Hackett rallies the forces ready to hit Kronos.

[DaveT]

Bester76 wrote...

I played it after Sanctuary. Not only do you then have all the squaddies lined up to appear, but narratively I just imagine that we're in for a refit while Hackett rallies the forces ready to hit Kronos.

I played it after Sanctuary too, mostly because I wanted to make sure Miranda could be in it, if she had a role.  But I think it was too much all at once, and then moving on to Cerberus/Earth felt too much like going to the dentist.  I kept putting off going back to the Normandy cause I really didn't want it to end.

For reference, I will finally finish my first play through on SP tonight, almost a year after getting the game.

On my next play through, I will likely do this right after Citadel 2, to give more time to enjoy the downtime with different characters.  I'll do the party as the final event before leaving for the Cerberus base.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I wouldn't read too much into it as being "you just wanted a happy ending" (note, I have only read the OP)

In my opinion there wasn't really a "consensus" on what specifically made people upset with the ending (IIRC there were about 3 different themes that came up a lot, and I felt many people fit on it on a continuum in some way, like a place on a triangle with each point being the particular destination). One thing that I did feel was pretty consistent, however, is that in large part players had a strong emotional investment into the game, most specifically the characters (there were other aspects as well, but I don't remember them being as common).

Contextually within the story, Citadel's story doesn't really make much sense. But I found, while playing it myself, that there's a sort of meta aspect to it. Most (I dare say the vast majority) of the players that play it will have already experienced the ending.  So as players when they play this, even though narratively it's "before" the ending, for the player it's still "after they've experienced all the other content in the game."  It's literally the last piece of content they will experience within the ME trilogy.

I found Citadel wasn't so much design to go on an adventure with Shepard. It was more to go on an adventure with the person playing the game. I think that's why it goes with breaking the 4th wall as much as it does. It invites the player along on a trip where they poke fun at the various memes that exist in the franchise, and delves more into spending time with the characters within the game as much as a player, rather than exclusively Shepard.


So rather than "lets go on an adventure with Shepard" it more said to me "Lets go on an adventure together with Allan."


I think that that's why it works so well. Had it been released with the game, it wouldn't have made a lick of sense. As the Forbes writer said, it only works as post-release content. As such, it came across as the game sort of saying "Thanks for all the memories." Which may sound sappy, but I really enjoyed the Citadel DLC and this I feel is why.


Cheers.

Allan

I have to agree Allan. The Citadel DLC is pretty much an ending in itself imo.

[FirstBlood XL]

That article the OP posted is dead on. Though, I'm always loath to mind-read a stranger's intentions (re: fan-service just for business sake)...

The point that it doesn't fit into the story at all is completely valid (imho). I didn't care for the mission part of it, at all. I felt like that moment where the whole squad fires down to help Shep was dramatically weaker than it should have been. And really, that type of moment should have been used in the Final Earth mission, where banshees and brutes are coming at you --- wave after wave --- while you defend the missiles. The STG, or Krogan, or Rachni, etc should have 'saved' your ass there, and would have put CONTEXT into creating those alliances.

Bleh --- I'm rambling now. Just wanted to say I agree with the article.

[ZombifiedJake]

Fan service is good and all, but it could have had a better story. Last ME3 content after all deserves something well written.

But it's what the majority wanted, and I agree that I would have preferred this over a really great story driven piece with no good squadmate banter/reflection on the series as a whole. But a compromise between the two is what I'm getting at.

[Cyberfrog81]

Getting the bad out of the way first: Would you party e.g. after watching Tali kill herself or after failing to stop Kai Leng on Thessia (Liara is pretty miserable then too)? Probably not. There's also the early conversation with Joker that seems to mock the idea of the DLC. It may be nothing, but it kinda would surprise me if every single person on the ME team thought the DLC made perfect sense...

But despite this (and other problems), I find it works on several levels.
1) As an ending. So you don't play through to the ending, but you can imagine that had you kept playing, you would end up with the high-EMS destroy ending. The narrative now fully supports Shepard returning to his or her loved ones.

2) As R&R. It is kind of amazing that people are able to relax with all the damage the Reapers are doing to the galaxy, but they are. Citadel is a break from the doom & gloom of the war.

3) "All hands on deck". We didn't get "Suicide Mission 2.0", which I still think is a shame, but at least you got to go on a cheesy action adventure with a larger team. Not only that, but when the adventure is over there's still an impressive amount of more content featuring these characters.

4) Wrex.

5) A decent boss battle. Specifically a boss with abilities based on your own Shepard.

6) A goodbye. To Shepard and crew. Actually, to the whole trilogy. #thebest



The ME3 ending was said to be "bittersweet", but it seriously failed to be that (specifically, it failed on the "sweet" part). But the Citadel DLC pulled it off.

So am I concerned that BioWare will only deliver cheesy, more or less shallow, romantic action-y nonsense from now on? No, not really. It remains to be seen if I will like the upcoming stories, but I don't think Citadel sets some kind of dangerous precedent. A lot of people in the industry may have seen how hard it is to pull off "artistic"/"philosophical"/"lots of speculation" endings in this interactive medium (especially when the player is very attached to the character he's playing). But that may not be such a horrible thing. I prefer less torture in my entertainment anyway.

[CaIIisto]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

The ME3 ending was said to be "bittersweet", but it seriously failed to be that (specifically, it failed on the "sweet" part). But the Citadel DLC pulled it off.

From a narrative perspective, the Citadel DLC ends in exactly the same way that the main game does - aimed for bittersweet, but overshot and hit depressing. However, from a meta perspective, the 'Normany Goodbye' scene absolutely nails it. 

[3DandBeyond]

The truth of it is that Citadel lacks context. As an epilog, post-ending it would have been totally in context, but as a piece of pre-ending stuff it is as out of place as boobies on a flea.

The bottom line as I see it is Bioware decided to sell ending content as pre-ending DLC. This is reunion content, but I think they decided to split hairs here and avoid a huge outcry over charging for a game's ending.

So, they did what they said they couldn't do (I believe it was Mike Gamble in a tweet said they couldn't do reunion DLC and customize it for everyone). Apparently as totally optional game's end content they could do it but not as totally optional story ending content.

[3DandBeyond]

Bester76 wrote...

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

The ME3 ending was said to be "bittersweet", but it seriously failed to be that (specifically, it failed on the "sweet" part). But the Citadel DLC pulled it off.

From a narrative perspective, the Citadel DLC ends in exactly the same way that the main game does - aimed for bittersweet, but overshot and hit depressing. However, from a meta perspective, the 'Normany Goodbye' scene absolutely nails it. 

The big problem for me is considering any of the "good" content in a context with the rest of ME3.  The parts I found bittersweet or just sweet or cheesy or any combination of not just plain depressing, all end up being so if capped off by the endings from hell.  I think the Normandy Evac scene is silly but the dialogue with some LIs is some of the best in the game.  Get to the end and then damn-I think the endings are made worse by any good content.  So, it's kind of like the last part of ME3 I want to see is that reunion stuff in Citadel.  I think that effect is what BW was after-instead of the crap taste of the endings, they figured many would hang onto the sweetness of Citadel instead.  Just never play to the end again.

[fainmaca]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Contextually within the story, Citadel's story doesn't really make much sense. But I found, while playing it myself, that there's a sort of meta aspect to it. Most (I dare say the vast majority) of the players that play it will have already experienced the ending.  So as players when they play this, even though narratively it's "before" the ending, for the player it's still "after they've experienced all the other content in the game."  It's literally the last piece of content they will experience within the ME trilogy.

I found Citadel wasn't so much design to go on an adventure with Shepard. It was more to go on an adventure with the person playing the game. I think that's why it goes with breaking the 4th wall as much as it does. It invites the player along on a trip where they poke fun at the various memes that exist in the franchise, and delves more into spending time with the characters within the game as much as a player, rather than exclusively Shepard.


So rather than "lets go on an adventure with Shepard" it more said to me "Lets go on an adventure together with Allan."

Then this is probably one of the roots of the problem between BW and people like me. When I play the game, Shepard is meant to be me, my avatar in the game's world. The game shouldn't have to break the 4th wall to interact with me, as when I'm in the mindset to play Shepard, I'm already in there, alongside my allies and enemies.

Also, I replay the games. I was replaying ME1+ME2 right up until ME3 came out (and a little after). I like to explore the setting in various ways. The DLCs are most definitely not the last piece of content I experience, therefore they need to still work with what must come after.

In short- stop alienating your players from their avatars, and remember that a choice game thrives if it encourages replayability of the entire experience. Making it impossible to go back from the new DLC to the drudge of the core product is a fatally bad mistake.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Tonally the DLC is very inconsistent with the rest of the game.

I couldn't care less. Call it AU if you want, but it's the kind of content I've been wanting since ME2. I don't play the Mass Effect series for a super serious sci-fi meditation. I come there for fun. This DLC is fun, well written, and often flat out hilarious. It succeeds on those merits and that's all it needs to succeed on.

[DarkSpiral]

fainmaca wrote...

In short- stop alienating your players from their avatars, and remember that a choice game thrives if it encourages replayability of the entire experience. Making it impossible to go back from the new DLC to the drudge of the core product is a fatally bad mistake.

DId you feel alienated from your Shepard?  I can't say I did, and I universally play as if I was the person making the choices.  I actually have a hard time maintaining a game where the choices the character makes are ones I would never ever consider.

As for the fatal mistake: No, not in this case.  Not in a final DLC pack, at any rate.  As the article on Forbes says. that would definitely have been the case if this had shipped with the vanilla game.

Huh.  I guess that actually is a kind of context, right there, isn't it.  A metagaming context, to be sure.  Because its the final content for the game, and this is actually the last hurrah, the overal impressions of the DLC have been positive.  If it had been in teh game from the get-go, it would have been sneered at as cheesy and ridiculous.

[fainmaca]

DarkSpiral wrote...

DId you feel alienated from your Shepard?  I can't say I did, and I universally play as if I was the person making the choices.  I actually have a hard time maintaining a game where the choices the character makes are ones I would never ever consider.

Hell yes. I'd say that, aside from the endings, the whole auto-dialogue thing has been the biggest complaint. Shepard speaking by himself, Zaeed-style conversations. Its not about whether you'd make the decisions, its about being given the option to make said decisions.

If this is in reference to the 4th wall, then of course that will alienate players from Shepard. Its a blatant reminder that we're out here, and he's in there. 4th wall stuff is immersion breaking taken up to 11.

As for the fatal mistake: No, not in this case.  Not in a final DLC pack, at any rate.  As the article on Forbes says. that would definitely have been the case if this had shipped with the vanilla game.

Huh.  I guess that actually is a kind of context, right there, isn't it.  A metagaming context, to be sure.  Because its the final content for the game, and this is actually the last hurrah, the overal impressions of the DLC have been positive.  If it had been in teh game from the get-go, it would have been sneered at as cheesy and ridiculous.

A DLC making it impossible to go back to the core game and kills the core product's replayability is not a mistake? Okay....

The 'feel-good storytelling' factor of this DLC makes the core game feel repugnant in comparison. DLC should never do that. It should complement and expand a game's setting, and potentially fix its flaws.

And once again, the meta-game aspect was what I spoke out about in my first point. meta-gaming breaks immersion and removes us from Shepard.

[Iakus]

fainmaca wrote...


The 'feel-good storytelling' factor of this DLC makes the core game feel repugnant in comparison. DLC should never do that. It should complement and expand a game's setting, and potentially fix its flaws.

.

What if the core game was already repugnant even before the dlc? :innocent:

[Oni Changas]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I wouldn't read too much into it as being "you just wanted a happy ending" (note, I have only read the OP)

In my opinion there wasn't really a "consensus" on what specifically made people upset with the ending (IIRC there were about 3 different themes that came up a lot, and I felt many people fit on it on a continuum in some way, like a place on a triangle with each point being the particular destination). One thing that I did feel was pretty consistent, however, is that in large part players had a strong emotional investment into the game, most specifically the characters (there were other aspects as well, but I don't remember them being as common).

Contextually within the story, Citadel's story doesn't really make much sense. But I found, while playing it myself, that there's a sort of meta aspect to it. Most (I dare say the vast majority) of the players that play it will have already experienced the ending.  So as players when they play this, even though narratively it's "before" the ending, for the player it's still "after they've experienced all the other content in the game."  It's literally the last piece of content they will experience within the ME trilogy.

I found Citadel wasn't so much design to go on an adventure with Shepard. It was more to go on an adventure with the person playing the game. I think that's why it goes with breaking the 4th wall as much as it does. It invites the player along on a trip where they poke fun at the various memes that exist in the franchise, and delves more into spending time with the characters within the game as much as a player, rather than exclusively Shepard.


So rather than "lets go on an adventure with Shepard" it more said to me "Lets go on an adventure together with Allan."


I think that that's why it works so well. Had it been released with the game, it wouldn't have made a lick of sense. As the Forbes writer said, it only works as post-release content. As such, it came across as the game sort of saying "Thanks for all the memories." Which may sound sappy, but I really enjoyed the Citadel DLC and this I feel is why.


Cheers.

Allan

I'm asking this in an honest way in regards to deciding the consensus of fans' complaints:

What about the near universal hatred for the Catalyst? Sure THAT, if anything would have been above and beyond THE complaint about the ending. Even many who liked EC or the originals weren't too fond of the hologram. That'd have gone pretty far in patching the story up.

[TJBartlemus]

fainmaca wrote...

A DLC making it impossible to go back to the core game and kills the core product's replayability is not a mistake? Okay....

The 'feel-good storytelling' factor of this DLC makes the core game feel repugnant in comparison. DLC should never do that. It should complement and expand a game's setting, and potentially fix its flaws.

And once again, the meta-game aspect was what I spoke out about in my first point. meta-gaming breaks immersion and removes us from Shepard.

 Exactly. Last time I checked, DLC was supposed to be additional story to a game that seamlessly (or as close as possible) fits in with the rest of the game. To just hand-wave that fact away just because of external factors like timing of release and it is a final goodbye is not really acceptable as consumers.

 Though touching and awesome that the BioWare team did take the time to give the fanservice so long sought after by us, they shouldn't of made the WHOLE DLC one giant fanservice like the way they did. I'm perfectly fine with fanservice but letting the other elements of the DLC as a whole fail just because of the fanservice is not. As many people have said (not in my opinon) the story fell short.