648 réponses à ce sujet

[dani1138]

That certainly makes sense, the Leviathans were clearly arrogant enough.

I just plain hate the idea that it could be revealed that the entirety of the galaxy's history and future could be so dramatically shaped by some moron at the beginning of time slipping on the logical equivalent of a banana peel. Its the kind of idea that would be more at home in a Douglas Adams book.

[ZLurps]

There have been discussion regarding conflict between themes and ending of ME series. I'm not really good on that sort of things but there are certain things that appear to conflict with the ending on level of what kind of approach was used regarding certain things.

There's been awfully lot of things said about how making players feel bad is terrible design choice in conferences I have been following and it also comes up in some interviews. Even people who design big budget strategy games like Civilization series follow that guideline.

EDI / Luna AI from ME1 is good example. That plot was solved in ME1, we went on a mission and took care of rogue VI, that's all about it, there was nothing left open regarding that. Yet it was picked up again in ME3, why?

I guess it idea might be influenced by one detail from Rogue AI mission. There was message on terminal: 01001000 01000101 01001100 01010000 . Converting the binary to ASCII reveals that the message reads 'HELP'.

In ME2 we started to deal more with AI's. EDI and Legion, now some players might have started feeling little bad that they destroyed that AI on Luna in ME1. So, in ME3 writers wrote it so, that AI really didn't die, Cerberus got involved and via Reaper code that AI became EDI. So player isn't a murderer.

Similar thing happened with geth. We kill tons of geth during ME1 campaign. Then we have Legion in ME2 and bond with the character. Again, writers didn't wanted us to feel like we were murderers so we only destroyed geth platforms. Geth could have been written just to be so numerous and... having different values to us which were made dealing with Shepard work, but writers didn't wanted players to feel like murderers so we only destroyed platforms.

So geth in ME1, we were only destroying their platforms (drones), the Collectors in ME2, It is explained to us couple of times that they are really just drones, Cerberus troops in ME3 practically drones too. Krogans that attack us on mission where we go looking for Grunt are practically mindless, like drones, so we don't need to feel bad shooting them and the one that is able to communicate, that explains us what is going on we can leave alive. Kenson and personnel on the Arrival DLC, indoctrinated.

Then there are lot's of droids, mercenaries, corrupted crime lords, all presented in a way that we don't need to feel bad for eliminating them. From the top of my head only mission that doesn't fit in pattern is N7 mission where Batarians shot a missile and player can't but decide which target they save.

The basic idea, let's go and shoot some bad guys doesn't really need explanation, but BW sure thought about that how to make it work in ME2 and ME3. When it goes to detail like Luna VI and EDI it goes to different level and what kind of ending writers working when creating such detail, they sure weren't thinking ending that went into game.

EDIT: Personally I don't like "player should never feel bad because of his/her actions" at all and that IMO isn't issue in ME3 campaign.

Modifié par ZLurps, 01 avril 2013 - 11:56 .

[David7204]

So...what? We should be gunning down people we like?

It sounds to me like there's a misunderstanding of cause and effect here. Shepard is not fighting people who happen to be bad. S/he's fighting people because they're bad.

Modifié par David7204, 01 avril 2013 - 11:57 .

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

So...what? We should be gunning down people we like?

It sounds to me like there's a misunderstanding of cause and effect here. Shepard is not fighting people who happen to be bad. S/he's fighting people because they're bad.

The point was to illustrate that writers weren't building to ending we got.

[ZLurps]

dani1138 wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

How broad strokes BW's plans for sequels were? Even if they had, where they needed to give? I guess we will never get to know. I'm not trying to either defend or blame BW here but why things like multimillion dollar studio working without clear vision how things are going to fold up in the end happens.

I'm guessing from the final product that those strokes were very broad. As in: Reapers invade > Find allies > Sort out Genophage > End Quarian/Geth Conflict > Final Confrontation > ? > Profit.

Could be, but that's sort of nature of the beast. If we take example from other media. There is a small team that wants to create, say documentary or certain kind of fiction but don't find anyone who wants to fund the project. They can solve the issue by coming up with say, Reality TV program they sell and funnel money from that to fund their project on their own. Producing AAA games is just too expensive for that sort of thing to work so options are different.

Modifié par ZLurps, 01 avril 2013 - 12:05 .

[David7204]

Look, I really don't think very many players at all cared about shutting down the VI and Luna and held onto that for five years. I'm sensing that you think having the player 'not feel like a murderer' is bad writing or something, and the developers did it to appease fragile fans at the expense of the story.

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

Look, I really don't think very many players at all cared about shutting down the VI and Luna and held onto that for five years. I'm sensing that you think having the player 'not feel like a murderer' is bad writing or something, and the developers did it to appease fragile fans at the expense of the story.

Like I wrote, that aspect of games is discussed a lot and that kind of approach is IMO obvious in ME3, you know, writer needed to get paid, recording that dialogue cost money, animating that sequence cost money. This sort of things don't end in game just because "why the hell not".

This is my view and you don't need to believe it or like it.

[David7204]

Are you talking about EDI's line of dialogue? Yes, things like that do get added in for the hell of it. It's not a question of money and work because EDI has be saying something anyway. All the characters do. All of the character need a certain amount of dialogue, but to do that, they need subjects to talk about. They need to fill that empty space. So it's not at all like they have a bunch of great dialogue in mind and they struggle to fit it in to the allotted number of conversations. It's more like they have an allotted number of conversations and they have to fill those in with dialogue.

Modifié par David7204, 01 avril 2013 - 12:24 .

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

Are you talking about EDI's line of dialogue? Yes, things like that do get added in for the hell of it. It's not a question of money and work because EDI has be saying something anyway. All the characters do. All of the character need a certain amount of dialogue, but to do that, they need subjects to talk about. They need to fill that empty space. So it's not at all like they have a bunch of great dialogue in mind and they struggle to fit it in to the allotted number of conversations. It's more like they have an allotted number of conversations and they have to fill those in with dialogue.

Yeah, and then it just happened on the only mission where EDI is mandatory squadmate. Okay.

[David7204]

Nobody cared about shooting that VI on Luna. Really, we've all shot bazillions of people in video games. Yes, they connected EDI to that, but certainly not because they were worried that players felt horrible about shooting that VI five years and two games ago.

And I'm glad they did. It worked out well. Certainly the story didn't suffer for it.

Modifié par David7204, 01 avril 2013 - 12:34 .

[Bleachrude]

I think a good example of broad strokes would be he evolution of the ardat-yakshi.

In ME1, all we know about the asari is that pure-bloods are discriminated against...it's never explained WHY (and if you think about it...doesn't make sense in the 1st game). At this point in time, I don't think BW really had fleshed out WHY purebloods are looked down upon....

In Me2, we find out that Samara's daughters are purebloods and what potentially can happen..namely the AY. Now we have an explanation for why the asari look down upon the purebloods...but even here, there's a slight discepancy in game. Samara's implies that there are only 3 in existence but this doesn't make sense given that not only Aria but the eclipse mercenary know and react as if AY are more common than 3 in however many hundreds of billions of asari there are.

I think that's why in ME3 they went with the AY scale and also indicated that there were more than just a couple AY among the asari...

[ZLurps]

Kinda hilarious to think if this really were BW's writing room. :-P

[Archonsg]

The ardat-yakshi issue is one that doesn't really stand up to a logic test.
If they needed could only use ardat-yakshi to make Banshees, how is it that the numbers of ardat-yakshi jumped to such numbers between the time Samara spoke of this to you, to the present day where hundreds - thousands of these things can be made from one single monastery.

If there wasn't only 3, did Samara lie, how could she lie, or be so incompetent to the point of not knowing how many ardat-yakshi there actually are given her oath and reason for being a Justicar.

Personally I think that its MP interfering with SP.
They needed a reason for hordes of Banshees.

[David7204]

We can tell the discrepancy was intentional by the diction of the codex entry.

[Maj.Enigma]

Even after a year I still don't like the ending...

[Wayning_Star]

Archonsg wrote...

The ardat-yakshi issue is one that doesn't really stand up to a logic test.
If they needed could only use ardat-yakshi to make Banshees, how is it that the numbers of ardat-yakshi jumped to such numbers between the time Samara spoke of this to you, to the present day where hundreds - thousands of these things can be made from one single monastery.

If there wasn't only 3, did Samara lie, how could she lie, or be so incompetent to the point of not knowing how many ardat-yakshi there actually are given her oath and reason for being a Justicar.

Personally I think that its MP interfering with SP.
They needed a reason for hordes of Banshees.

well, cloning could be an issue with the mass effectiveness of those numbers? All they, apparently, would need is a few for the chems/DNA strand/doctor evil stuff?

It's never explained how they reapers actually 'produce' their weapons grade baddies, they just kind of "pop up" in droves. Kind of threw me when Evile Twin Shep, tries to upend not as evile Original Shepard on/in the Citadel?

That left open a  'star wars' epic proportion, of the clone wars, another mass effect production... jus say'n

[Wayning_Star]

David7204 wrote...

Nobody cared about shooting that VI on Luna. Really, we've all shot bazillions of people in video games. Yes, they connected EDI to that, but certainly not because they were worried that players felt horrible about shooting that VI five years and two games ago.

And I'm glad they did. It worked out well. Certainly the story didn't suffer for it.

that's a foreshadow to synthesis..via the chaos, as it were. That ole snafu of rise'n fall of the latest greatest societies' history buffs..

[Bleachrude]

Archonsg wrote...

The ardat-yakshi issue is one that doesn't really stand up to a logic test.
If they needed could only use ardat-yakshi to make Banshees, how is it that the numbers of ardat-yakshi jumped to such numbers between the time Samara spoke of this to you, to the present day where hundreds - thousands of these things can be made from one single monastery.

If there wasn't only 3, did Samara lie, how could she lie, or be so incompetent to the point of not knowing how many ardat-yakshi there actually are given her oath and reason for being a Justicar.

Personally I think that its MP interfering with SP.
They needed a reason for hordes of Banshees.

Don't blame MP.

There's too many AY in SP if there was only 2 with Falere and Rila. 1 really, since you save Falere.  You have multiple AY AY on Sanctuary/Horizon and on earth as well...

It doesn't really make sense anyway that in ME2 that there was only 3 anyway. As i said, there both Aria and that eclipse merc that transported Morinth to Omega seemed to know exactly what an AY was and what it could do

In a population of several billions, there being only 2-3 AY should mean that other asari should have no experience and/or consider AY more like a myth/fairytale. Neither Aria or that eclipse merc acted like that.

It also doesn't account for the distaste that the asari have for purebloods if only 3 in several billion become AY.

[Spartas Husky]

Completely random again I think it was to scriptbabe who mention this not sure where... I tried Infiltrator and an Engineer for single player.... did not got beyond Mars. Just missed my sexy tech armor too much... plus I wan be a biotic with tech powers.

[chemiclord]

Archonsg wrote...

The ardat-yakshi issue is one that doesn't really stand up to a logic test.
If they needed could only use ardat-yakshi to make Banshees, how is it that the numbers of ardat-yakshi jumped to such numbers between the time Samara spoke of this to you, to the present day where hundreds - thousands of these things can be made from one single monastery.

If there wasn't only 3, did Samara lie, how could she lie, or be so incompetent to the point of not knowing how many ardat-yakshi there actually are given her oath and reason for being a Justicar.

Personally I think that its MP interfering with SP.
They needed a reason for hordes of Banshees.

Well, that might simply be an issue of odd wording.  If you take the context of the discussion as limited to only Samara's daughters, she's simply saying that she has three daughters, and all of them are ardat-yakshi.  She's likely not saying anything about the actual number of ardat-yakshi in the galaxy at all.

[Spartas Husky]

It said that they needed dominant strains of the Ardat-yakshi dna. Not necessarily a full blown one.

"The Reapers create them specifically from asari with active or latent predispositions to becoming Ardat-Yakshi,"

[Gulaman]

What really irritated me, among so many things about the ending, was Bioware insulting the fan's intelligence with the absolute crap they were coming out with in order to defend it. I would have had more respect for Bioware had they just said that the ending was slightly rushed to deadlines, rather than the horse sh!t about how they thought the ending was great, and how upset they are with the fan's reaction. What the hell did they expect?

[Iakus]

Gulaman wrote...

What really irritated me, among so many things about the ending, was Bioware insulting the fan's intelligence with the absolute crap they were coming out with in order to defend it. I would have had more respect for Bioware had they just said that the ending was slightly rushed to deadlines, rather than the horse sh!t about how they thought the ending was great, and how upset they are with the fan's reaction. What the hell did they expect?

Don't forget claiming the that it was just "confusion" about the ending.  It couldn't possibly be that, yes, we understood the endings just fine and were repulsed by them.  Nope, the audience simply didn't get it.

[chemiclord]

Gulaman wrote...

What really irritated me, among so many things about the ending, was Bioware insulting the fan's intelligence with the absolute crap they were coming out with in order to defend it. I would have had more respect for Bioware had they just said that the ending was slightly rushed to deadlines, rather than the horse sh!t about how they thought the ending was great, and how upset they are with the fan's reaction. What the hell did they expect?

Well, problem #1:  Even if it's true that the ending was rushed... EA would NEVER have allowed Bioware to admit that, or ANYTHING that would have put the corporate bosses in a poor light.  So, with that in mind, expecting anything other than a vigorous defense of what was produced was honestly a bit unrealistic.

[TheRealJayDee]

iakus wrote...

Don't forget claiming the that it was just "confusion" about the ending.  It couldn't possibly be that, yes, we understood the endings just fine and were repulsed by them.  Nope, the audience simply didn't get it.

To be fair - some of us also imagined we had genuine problems with the ending because we juuuuust couldn't let go of Shepard and Mass Effect.