648 réponses à ce sujet

[dani1138]

David:
The discussion was never about which game has had a bigger impact. You've made it about that by reading between the lines when there was nothing to see. The connections you are drawing aren't there.

Which game had a bigger impact in and of itself proves nothing. I stand by my point: The Witcher 2 did not have to make trade-offs or cut corners in order to offer meaningful choices and consequences. Many games don't have to make the kind of sacrifices you're suggesting in order to deliver up just the experience they promised prior to launch. The size of a particular fanbase and it's dedication to a particular subject is neither here nor there. Devotion to something does not automatically confer the blessing of ultimate quality on it, and if it did, we'd all be hanging out on Justin Bieber forums.

Chemicord:
I don't disagree at all. However the same targets don't apply to all games, and in this argument I have to judge games on what they purport to offer us. Witcher never did promise a fully customisable avatar with paragon and renegade paths, that's Mass Effect's game.

There would be no point in me ranting and raving about how the latest Assassin's Creed offers the player no meaningful choice - it never said it would! (Besides, there's an abundant amount of other things I'd like to complain about that particular game for...) Just as it would make no sense for me to complain that Mass Effect isn't an open world game.

What we are talking about, however, is a product that sold itself on meaningful choices, and you only have to look at the abundant advertising, publicity material and, yes, those infamous dev quotes, to see that. Judging the final product on the standards its makers set for themselves in a highly public fashion is not hypocritical, and nor is it unreasonable.


And with that, I'm off to bed.

[chemiclord]

drayfish wrote...

So, genuine question:

Did you feel that Shepard was somehow deficient in Mass Effect 1 and 2 when you were actually afforded the opportunity to (relatively) control her responses and actions?

Deficient?  Not really.  For two games, Mass Effect did it quite well.  I think they then were kinda pushed into defining Shepard and autodialogue because of the tremendous number of variables they created for themselves. 

What I would PREFER doesn't mean that a "player avatar" can't be done well.

[FlamingBoy]

Since OP thesis is about "mistakes" here is my take.
There have been mistakes made on both sides of the issue.

That said bioware is a corporation and the creator of a product there is a significantly higher expectation both in a legal and moral sense.
You can't really hold a group of passionate (YES, PASSIONATE ) gamers responsible for there actions, nor the actions of one as a representation as a whole and harp on that issue endlessly to distract (such as the whole ******-sexual thing, it all seemed brutally convenient, trying to pin mass effect fans as raging homophobes) from the main points

[David7204]

Speaking of Veronica's quest, I notice how you completely failed to mention that the whole quest focuses on her failed attempt to get the Brotherhood to come out of seclusion...and there's another questline that centers on getting the Brotherhood to come out of seclusion. So you can literally complete one quest and have the Elder joyfully tell you the Brotherhood is now out of seclusion, and then immediately bring Veronica down and have the Elder tell her the Brotherhood will never, ever come out of seclusion. Choices that matter, huh? Works vice-versa, too. Veronica apparently doesn't care if the Brotherhood changes their minds after her quest is complete. That's a 'masterpiece' of gameplay and story integration, all right.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 02:08 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

David7204 wrote...

Speaking of Veronica's quest, I notice how you completely failed to mention that the whole quest focuses on her failed attempt to get the Brotherhood to come out of seclusion...and there's another questline that centers on getting the Brotherhood to come out of seclusion. So you can literally complete one quest and have the Elder joyfully tell you the Brotherhood is now out of seclusion, and then immediately bring Veronica down and have the Elder tell her the Brotherhood will never, ever come out of seclusion. Choices that matter, huh? Works vice-versa, too. Veronica apparently doesn't care if the Brotherhood changes their minds after her quest is complete. That's a 'masterpiece' of gameplay and story integration, all right.

D'you have any other argument beyond cherry picking one example to rail on or can I safely assume that you have nothing left of value to say?

[drayfish]

chemiclord wrote...

drayfish wrote...

So, genuine question:

Did you feel that Shepard was somehow deficient in Mass Effect 1 and 2 when you were actually afforded the opportunity to (relatively) control her responses and actions?

Deficient?  Not really.  For two games, Mass Effect did it quite well.  I think they then were kinda pushed into defining Shepard and autodialogue because of the tremendous number of variables they created for themselves. 

What I would PREFER doesn't mean that a "player avatar" can't be done well.

Thanks for the answer.

I guess I am of the mind that since the autodialogued creature that was delivered to me in ME3 was so alien in some of her interactions and auto-expressed opinions, I was already being bounced out of the experience. 

Had she been closer in line with the way that I had experienced my more reactive, imput-reliant Shepard in ME 1 and 2, I would no doubt have found the experience more organic, but as it was, this relative stranger appeared quite jarring to me (even before the ending, in which the floundering figure presented had no resemblance at all to to the character I admired).

EDIT:

To use a rather clumsy example, it was like in a television series when the character has been recast, and their tone alters slightly also - a sensation almost certainly not helped by the ridiculous face-import issue (quite a curious fault for a polished, immersive RPG to have suffered...)

Yep, ME3 is my Darren in Bewitched.

Modifié par drayfish, 30 mars 2013 - 02:28 .

[David7204]

Unfortunately I haven't played the Witcher and Alpha Protocol and have no intention to, so I can't really critique much you say about them. I can certainly tell you the 'big choices' in New Vegas sure as hell did not lead to big impacts. I can tell you it's pretty ridiculous to consider New Vegas a 'masterpiece' of story and gameplay integration when you can blow the head off a companion right in front of other companions and not have them lift an eyebrow, as well as countless other examples of the sort, both from a technical and narrative perspective. I can tell you the vast majority of quests, both sidequests and mainquests lack any meaningful themes or particularly interesting characters and basically come off as grunt work compared to the quests in ME 3. I can tell you the only difference at the ending between doing every sidequest perfectly and completely blowing them off is a couple of mooks that quickly get gunned down and a single second slide per faction. I can tell you none of the characters have anywhere near the affection and respect that characters in ME do. I can tell you the entire plot in general is built on a rather clumsy premise, considering the NCR and House could both get literally everything they want by working together, but don't for rather muddy reasons.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 02:32 .

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

Unfortunately I haven't played the Witcher and Alpha Protocol and have no intention to, so I can't really critique much you say about them. I can certainly tell you the 'big choices' in New Vegas sure as hell did not lead to big impacts. I can tell you it's pretty ridiculous to consider New Vegas a 'masterpiece' of story and gameplay integration when you can blow the head off a companion right in front of other companions and not have them lift an eyebrow, as well as countless other examples of the sort, both from a technical and narrative perspective. I can tell you the vast majority of quests, both sidequests and mainquests lacked any meaningful themes or particularly interesting characters and basically come off as grunt work compared to the quests in ME 3. I can tell you the only difference at the ending between doing every sidequest perfectly and completely blowing them off is a couple of mooks that quickly get gunned down and a single second slide per faction.

By that rationale, Mass Effect 3 fails as an RPG because you can't blow Liara's head off in the Normandy's kitchenette...

By that rationale, all games that allow for player agency and imput in lieu of direct narrative divergence (which as has already been stated, New Vegas does in fact exhibit anyway), including character customisation; multiple mission success scenarios; and the capacity to choose one's own journey through the game, arbitrarilly do not qualify as RPGs.  There is a lot of other texts that you will therefore be striking from that list if that is the case (Deus Ex:HR and Skyrim, to name but two examples).

You seem to be picking very selective examples and extrapolating rather expansive theories that all ultimately amount to 'This is what I personally like, so there...'

[David7204]

I didn't say a thing about what qualifies as an RPG or not. The only thing I'm interested in showing is that Mass Effect does a lot of things better than any other game out there, which disproves the idea that other RPGs have 'bigger' choices without any kind of drawbacks.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 02:48 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

David7204 wrote...

Unfortunately I haven't played the Witcher and Alpha Protocol and have no intention to, so I can't really critique much you say about them. I can certainly tell you the 'big choices' in New Vegas sure as hell did not lead to big impacts. I can tell you it's pretty ridiculous to consider New Vegas a 'masterpiece' of story and gameplay integration when you can blow the head off a companion right in front of other companions and not have them lift an eyebrow, as well as countless other examples of the sort, both from a technical and narrative perspective. I can tell you the vast majority of quests, both sidequests and mainquests lack any meaningful themes or particularly interesting characters and basically come off as grunt work compared to the quests in ME 3. I can tell you the only difference at the ending between doing every sidequest perfectly and completely blowing them off is a couple of mooks that quickly get gunned down and a single second slide per faction. I can tell you none of the characters have anywhere near the affection and respect that characters in ME do. I can tell you the entire plot in general is built on a rather clumsy premise, considering the NCR and House could both get literally everything they want by working together, but don't for rather muddy reasons.

I get it, you don't like New Vegas, but you're rather disingeuous about it. The Big Choice is not whenever you got the Khans or Brotherhood to ally with NCR, but actually picking NCR in the first place because it makes the final mission divergent from House's, and completely different from the Legion's. Rest is basically opinion, which is fine but not really a great argument. NCR doesn't ally House because they want to rule New Vegas themselves, House doesn't ally NCR because he doesn't trust democracy (rather understandably, considering how ****ed up the pre-war US was) and thinks he can be head honcho without them breathing down his neck. Sounds like you didn't pay much attention. It's like asking yourself why Aria and Cerberus don't band together. Divergent interests.

You completely failed to address the rest of my points, so I'll leave it at that. You like Mass Effect's narrative more, that's fine. But it seems you're unable to accept it has failures both in design and in execution, and that some games do better on both counts.

[David7204]

Did you just miss the multiple times throughout this thread I've mentioned that the choices in ME 3 could have been handled better? Never for a moment have I denied that. So that's complete nonsense.

You have no points. You're whining that choices didn't matter enough. And that would have been credible, albeit tedious, had you not undermined it with clumsy and ineffectual comparisons relying on distorted information. But again, the facts are with me. There's a reason why people care immensely about Shepard and nobody cares much about the Courier. It seems you've simply failed to consider that.

And you're wrong about New Vegas, by the way. Is there a single NCR soldier who tells you they plan to take over Vegas? There isn't. Crocker doesn't say it. Moore doesn't say it. Nobody says it. Why would they? House does a better job taking care of it than they could. As for House fearing democracy, that's ridiculous. He wants an economic powerhouse, not a utopian society. How would 'democracy' change anything on the strip? In any case, both of them should wise up enough to work together with the Legion on their doorstep.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 03:16 .

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

I didn't say a thing about what qualifies as an RPG or not. The only thing I'm interested in showing is that Mass Effect does a lot of things better than any other game out there, which disproves the idea that other RPGs have 'bigger' choices without any kind of drawbacks.

Well since we're essentially swimming in the tide pool of your subjective opinion:


Which has the better side-missions - Mass Effect 3's Fed-Ex inspired scan-and-deliver runs, or New Vegas in which
arguably every quest is 'optional'?

Which game has more reactivity - Mass Effect, in which you can be a genocidal, lying, racist, bloodthirsty maniac whose reputation stretches across the stars but who is greeted by every NPC like you are a friendly stranger errand-boy, or Red Dead Redemption and Fable in which your reputation throughout the land precedes you, and people respond or call out salutations in kind?

Which game has more endgame scenarios - Mass Effect, in which every single player gets dumped into the same
tripartite fork in the road, or Chrono Trigger, which has something like 13 different distinct endings, including one in which history is repopulated with reptiles?

Which game has more little horsey characters called 'knights', who move two squares and then one square, and can jump over other players - Mass Effect, which only has the Mako, or Chess, which has, like, four of them?


As I mentioned previously, you are using selective examples and trying to turn that into deliberative fact. Opinions don't work that way, and it would benefit you to keep in mind that you are but one voice amongst innumerable such perspectives.

Modifié par drayfish, 30 mars 2013 - 03:18 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

David7204 wrote...

Did you just miss the multiple times throughout this thread I've mentioned that the choices in ME 3 could have been handled better? Never for a moment have I denied that. So that's complete nonsense.

You have no points. You're whining that choices didn't matter enough. And that would have been credible, albeit tedious, had you not undermined it with clumsy and ineffectual comparisons relying on distorted information. But again, the facts are with me. There's a reason why people care immensely about Shepard and nobody cares much about the Courier. It seems you've simply failed to consider that.

And you're wrong about New Vegas, by the way. Is there a single NCR soldier who tells you they plan to take over Vegas? There isn't. Crocker doesn't say it. Moore doesn't say it. Nobody says it. Why would they? House does a better job taking care of it than they could. As for House fearing democracy, that's ridiculous. He wants an economic powerhouse, not a utopian society. How would 'democracy' change anything on the strip? 

... Except that's completely not the same thing. Talk about moving the goalposts again. Jeez. Making the choices better in ME3 would not have diminished the narrative in any sort of way. The Courier is the player's avatar, so of course he has less of a personality than Shepard, who's much more defined. What next, will you say Half-Life sucked or had a worse story because Gordon Freeman is a less defined character than Booker DeWitt?

About taking over, it's what they do in the ending. It's what Moore wants to do. It's what Oliver wants to do. That's the whole damn point of coming in the Mojave, first the Dam, then Vegas as a secure base. Or do you think they will just let a shining pre-war city lie around untouched? They want Vegas for the same reason they wanted Vault City, and that was under a more benevolent administration. They also want House, who's a dangerous wild card to them, out of the picture. And it turns out, they were right not to trust him.

House doesn't fear democracy, he doesn't trust it to get the job done. That's not the same thing. He believes in efficiency above everything, and the NCR is not really effiient what with all the red tape and corruption and infighting between services. Plus of course, NCR being in the picture means he doesn't get to do whatever he wants with Vegas, so that's a big no-no to a guy with a major chip on his shoulders. This is all spelled quite clearly in the game, so you really seem not to have paid any attention.

Whatever, I'm done with this charade. You begin to sound like a person who will lash out to anyone who will say anything about their own opinion. I like Mass Effect, by the way. I simply find the main plot is full of holes and the choices could really have been made much better quite easily.

[David7204]

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. That having a character like Shepard as opposed to a 'blank slate' makes for a better story. Which inevitably means the other stories must be worse in comparison. It cuts both ways.

Making the choices in ME 3 'better' would certainly have improved the story, but making them more like New Vegas' (in other words, player agency at the cost of good characters and good themes) sure as hell would not have.

And that is just stupid. NCR wants Vegas as a 'base'? A 'base.' They've got the Dam and they want Vegas as a 'base.' No. Moore says point blank the Vegas is a nice resort, but an acceptable loss next to the Dam. Nobody says a damn thing about Vegas being a 'base.' They have access to all the amenities of Vegas already.

The strip is not a branch of government. Do you understand that? It's a business. Are casinos run by democracy because a country is a democracy? Of course not. That's just ridiculous.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 03:47 .

[David7204]

drayfish wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I didn't say a thing about what qualifies as an RPG or not. The only thing I'm interested in showing is that Mass Effect does a lot of things better than any other game out there, which disproves the idea that other RPGs have 'bigger' choices without any kind of drawbacks.

Well since we're essentially swimming in the tide pool of your subjective opinion:


Which has the better side-missions - Mass Effect 3's Fed-Ex inspired scan-and-deliver runs, or New Vegas in which
arguably every quest is 'optional'?

Which game has more reactivity - Mass Effect, in which you can be a genocidal, lying, racist, bloodthirsty maniac whose reputation stretches across the stars but who is greeted by every NPC like you are a friendly stranger errand-boy, or Red Dead Redemption and Fable in which your reputation throughout the land precedes you, and people respond or call out salutations in kind?

Which game has more endgame scenarios - Mass Effect, in which every single player gets dumped into the same
tripartite fork in the road, or Chrono Trigger, which has something like 13 different distinct endings, including one in which history is repopulated with reptiles?

Which game has more little horsey characters called 'knights', who move two squares and then one square, and can jump over other players - Mass Effect, which only has the Mako, or Chess, which has, like, four of them?


As I mentioned previously, you are using selective examples and trying to turn that into deliberative fact. Opinions don't work that way, and it would benefit you to keep in mind that you are but one voice amongst innumerable such perspectives.

Any adjective used to describe any element of any story is going to be 'subjective.' Fiction is not math. Constraining ourselves to only strictly provable statements would make discussion of fiction impossible.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 03:45 .

[Bleachrude]

I do think it would be nice to have people call out Shepard on how he talks to them...

I liked how Victus told Shepard to watch his tone when Shepard tried his renegade speech at him

But that would've screwed over renegades even more than the game did...A poster mentions Fable and Red dead redemption but in both cases, no matter how much of a douchebag you are, you STILL have the same people willing to work with you...

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Well since we're essentially swimming in the tide pool of your subjective opinion:


Which has the better side-missions - Mass Effect 3's Fed-Ex inspired scan-and-deliver runs, or New Vegas in which
arguably every quest is 'optional'?

Which game has more reactivity - Mass Effect, in which you can be a genocidal, lying, racist, bloodthirsty maniac whose reputation stretches across the stars but who is greeted by every NPC like you are a friendly stranger errand-boy, or Red Dead Redemption and Fable in which your reputation throughout the land precedes you, and people respond or call out salutations in kind?

Which game has more endgame scenarios - Mass Effect, in which every single player gets dumped into the same
tripartite fork in the road, or Chrono Trigger, which has something like 13 different distinct endings, including one in which history is repopulated with reptiles?

Which game has more little horsey characters called 'knights', who move two squares and then one square, and can jump over other players - Mass Effect, which only has the Mako, or Chess, which has, like, four of them?


As I mentioned previously, you are using selective examples and trying to turn that into deliberative fact. Opinions don't work that way, and it would benefit you to keep in mind that you are but one voice amongst innumerable such perspectives.

Any adjective used to describe any element of any story is going to be 'subjective.' Fiction is not math. Constraining ourselves to only strictly provable statements would make discussion of fiction impossible.

I was comparing specific attributes of known games to show how reductive your own actions were.  Trying to dislodge this into some weird debate about 'fiction' all of a sudden is rather disingenuous.

Also, you do realise how what you just said applies to your own behaviour in this thread, don't you?  I'm not sure why you think you are allowed the freedom to express your personal opinion, but others are hypocrites, fools, and running their mouths for doing the same.  The contradiction embarrasses you.

[David7204]

What the bloody hell are you even talking about? What exactly is your problem with my posts? First they're 'subjective,' now they're 'reductive'? I don't know what you're trying to say.

You can drop the pointless poetic crap, by the way. It 'embarrasses you' to 'be swimming in a tidepool' of your 'rather disingenuous' nonsense.

Also, there is no hypocrisy, because, first of all, I wasn't complaining about the quote by Walters. Secondly, I wasn't resorting to nonsense to defend ME 3.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 04:12 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Hmm so almost everybody is playing nice? Good work most of you.


To the pleasant fellow who can't seem to play nice: 1/10 Not good enough.


That is all.

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

What the bloody hell are you even talking about? What exactly is your problem with my posts? First they're 'subjective,' now they're 'reductive'? I don't know what you're trying to say.

You can drop the pointless poetic crap, by the way. It 'embarrasses you' to 'be swimming in a tidepool' of your 'rather disingenuous' nonsense.

Also, there is no hypocrisy, because, first of all, I wasn't complaining about the quote by Walters. Secondly, I wasn't resorting to nonsense to defend ME 3.

Okay, I'll cut the 'poetry' (if it really can be called that - I'm not sure the word-salad you made of my posts actually makes grammatical sense, unless you count dada).  (...Whoops, sorry, I said 'word-salad', my bad.)

Your posts are needlessly hostile and often completely contradictory.

You call people names, belittle them and their opinions because they do not align with yours, and then try to shift out of acknowledging your own hypocrisies by changing the subject at will.

You accuse others of being selective (and wrong) in the examples that they choose to present; and then gladly offer utterly selective examples to bolster your own opinion, without seeing the inconsistency in that position.

(...Was 'bolster' too flowery?)

You continuously shift the subject matter of the argument that you are making in every other post, and then declare proudly that no-one has answered your challenge - even though this would literally require them being precognitive.

(...Sorry for 'precognitive').

Ultimately, as I made clear in the first post that I wrote in response to your pointless aggression (which now appears to be turned on me), my issue with how you have been conducting yourself is that you make it impossible for your own opinion to be heard when you harass or insult others, and contradict yourself.

It suggests that you are either completely incapable of self-assessment, or are intentionally being contrarian (sorry for that one too).  Either way it makes you incapable of rational discussion - which is as much a shame for you as it is for those that you attack.

Modifié par drayfish, 30 mars 2013 - 05:08 .

[oblique9]

this thread has been on the first page long enough... modz plz

[ZLurps]

ScriptBabe wrote...

Folks, we have been having a really lovely conversation with lots of give and take and analysis and of story and structure. There has been disagreement, but it's been polite and pleasant. Let's strive to keep it that way.

Everything on these forums lives on borrowed time, but I'm curious if this thread could get an extension.

ScriptBabe wrote...

Ah, but it isn't all just about Shepard. He had the scientists and researchers with him. It's about the alliance of divergent people.

And EDI, sentient super computer is still a super computer. I still sometimes like to toy with an idea that Shepard and co. were solved the problem using research and science. I really liked how BW tied that aspect of characters to story, Liara's time capsule scene and EDI and Traynor collaborating for example.

It's very easy to think all sort of possibilies now but still, I wonder if BW could have made story arch work by not introducing the Crusible so soon. Ancient Prothean description of some sort of desparate project, clues where to discover more about it and slowly it unfolds along the road. There's no import issues from ME2 regarding Liara and EDI so they could used those characters talents bit more. I think I were gladly spent a bit more time with that sort of thing at expense of Cerberus.

Modifié par ZLurps, 30 mars 2013 - 08:47 .

[ScriptBabe]

I like your idea of needing to track down this Prothean device, but I think a bigger problem was that the crucible wasn't introduced -- or at least the concept of an ancient weapon -- wasn't laid in way back in game one. The end has to be suggested in the beginning or it is always going to feel like a cheat. Fiction isn't real life. It has a structure, and plays off the fact that our brains form patterns. As writers we have to try to always keep that in mind, and try to lay in all the clues gracefully. I love a book or film where I get to the end and go "Oh wow! They totally set that up way back in that first scene. Now I can see it." It's like looking at a beautiful and intricate piece of machinery. I've written a couple of lines in the script that I hope are going to have that effect. (Assuming the movie gets made. Never a guarantee in Hollywood.)

[ZLurps]

True, I was really thinking how to deal with situation where you have no build up and then playing what I have, limited time and resources. Nothing classy, but might work.

There is something interesting I remembered when browsing through Kaspyrhyn's novels ME: Ascension and ME: Retribution. In Ascension it was made clear that the Collectors were interested in human biotics. Then, in ME: Retribution it turns to obsession. Trip Reapers make to Grissom Academy using Grayson is practically suicide mission for them.

I recall thinking it about back when I read ME: Ascension for the first time, could enhancing biotic abilities be key in how to defeat Reapers.

I came to revisit the idea recently and thought we sure had lot of biotics in ME2 squad, more than a half excluding DLC characters, and no matter how badly SM ends, it still left Liara in reserve. There's still not much to work with, what it reads in the novels it's clear that human biotics are particularly interesting to Reapers.

I don't think building major such things up in back ground material works, and on the main media and in ME2 there really isn't much to work with... there may be so many biotics just because of suicide mission mechanics.

There was also trip Quarian ship made into Dark Space but that plot which was shot down after ME3. Gotta say that besides Dark Energy / Haestrom's Sun I can't think of anything useful for proper build up.

Modifié par ZLurps, 30 mars 2013 - 06:16 .

[David7204]

ScriptBabe wrote...

I like your idea of needing to track down this Prothean device, but I think a bigger problem was that the crucible wasn't introduced -- or at least the concept of an ancient weapon -- wasn't laid in way back in game one. The end has to be suggested in the beginning or it is always going to feel like a cheat. Fiction isn't real life. It has a structure, and plays off the fact that our brains form patterns. As writers we have to try to always keep that in mind, and try to lay in all the clues gracefully. I love a book or film where I get to the end and go "Oh wow! They totally set that up way back in that first scene. Now I can see it." It's like looking at a beautiful and intricate piece of machinery. I've written a couple of lines in the script that I hope are going to have that effect. (Assuming the movie gets made. Never a guarantee in Hollywood.)

Well...I don't know.

I really would prefer players to be asking "How the hell are we going to do this?" instead of "How is this superweapon going to save us?" It might not be a DEM, but there's still a lot less good conflict.

It's not impossible. Have you read Harry Potter? The last book did a great job of introducing the Deathly Hallows themselves without coming as contrived. (Although not so much with the wand ownership stuff.)

I guess I would say it's important to introduce power and mystery early on and have the solution come out of that somehow, rather than introduce a solution specifically.

Also, I be very hesitant to use any kind of plotline focusing on the power of human biotics, since that sounds like the story would be tremendously dependant on Shepard's class, an adept Shepard being on far with Jack and all. Which a huge red flag.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mars 2013 - 06:20 .