274 réponses à ce sujet

[mtmercydave09]

anorling wrote...

Getorex wrote...

anorling noted that he easily let go of Shepard. Sure, I can too but not in any game called Mass Effect. Shepard (and the main crew, Ash, Liara, Tali, Garrus, Wrex) DEFINES Mass Effect. Individually and together they are the heart and soul of Mass Effect. So, yeah, outside of anything called "Mass Effect" I can let go of Shepard but to me anything labeled "Mass Effect" that lacks these characters isn't really Mass Effect. It is something else, a copycat.

Yeah. letting go of Shepard wasn't that hard (for me).
I had a harder time letting go of the way Bioware chose to let go of Shepard if you know what I mean

What I will miss in the next game however is the rest of Shepards crew that I grew to love

That's how I feel too.  I won't miss Shepard so much as I will the crew that I grew to love.  Those characters felt like family to me.

[robertthebard]

Diurdi wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Which ending are you going to force on everyone else?  The only one that could conceivably work is Destroy.  In the rest, there really is no Shepard.

Or they could just clone a new Shepard. I'm betting that it wouldn't be any more disappointing than whatever they try to come up with for the next ME game.

No thanks, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  I don't need another Lazarus DeM either.  Shepard's part in the universe is done, and we've all known it was going to end where it did, if not how it did.  Really could have been better, but, as I said, in my canon game, Shepard died on the way to the beam.  The only way to continue that story, for me, is to DeM him back to life, yet again.  I'd rather move on to other stories, and frankly, I wouldn't even look at it if it's going to be a handwave of the endings just to have Shepard back.

[Melierax]

mtmercydave09 wrote...

That's how I feel too.  I won't miss Shepard so much as I will the crew that I grew to love.  Those characters felt like family to me.

That's the point - losing Shepard is not the problem, "I was Shepard" if you know what I mean.

Modifié par Melierax, 10 avril 2013 - 04:20 .

[Iakus]

anorling wrote...

Yeah. letting go of Shepard wasn't that hard (for me).
I had a harder time letting go of the way Bioware chose to let go of Shepard if you know what I mean

What I will miss in the next game however is the rest of Shepards crew that I grew to love

Bolded for truth.

Bioware's going to have to work hard to regain my trust after that.

[mtmercydave09]

simfamSP wrote...

Letting go of these characters was some of the most emotional stuff a game has ever put me through. And by letting go, I mean knowing we will never see these wonderful bastards again. By the end of the Citadel my heart sank to a low that yet to be reached.

And I've had family members die, it's not like I haven't experienced loss before.

I agree, letting go of the characters was the hardest part.  I mean I know if we want to see them again we can just reload the game, but knowing there's not going to be any more content with them is hard.

I hated having to end the Citadel DLC.  I mean the ending scene was good but sad.

Reading lots of good fanfiction out there helped me with that though.  

Modifié par mtmercydave09, 10 avril 2013 - 05:03 .

[Getorex]

It's not like everyone has had a LOT of interaction with the characters so that should be enough. If you took all the "conversations" you had with any main character, even your LI choice, and combined each into a single long conversation, it would not add up to more than about 15 minutes of actual conversation per character. Interactions where they just give an off-the-cuff auto-response don't count...that's just bare bones ambiance. Given that, I would say there is a LOT more room for character development for each character and a LOT more room for more interaction.  I don't see how the story or characters can possibly be said to be played out.

I kinda think it funny how many get REALLY attached to their fav LI when it is actually based on no more than 15-20 minutes of actual direct "interaction". If only dating in RL were that easy, I'd have had an uncountable number of women by now.  Literally. That said, I am "attached" the characters and it is entirely because of what we embue them with. We HAVE to embue a LOT because of the objective scarcity of actual depth and content that serves as merely a light framework for us to fill in.  We do a lot of filling in so it is personal.

There's lots of room for more and we like them enough as is to want more.

Modifié par Getorex, 10 avril 2013 - 05:18 .

[Repzik]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Repzik wrote...

Fallout is a "sandbox", open-world game that is very much NOT character-driven. You cannot quite compare it to ME or DA, because the focus is vastly different.
The same apllies to Bioshock: it was all about the plot. In fact, the central character's empty hollowness was tied very nicely into the story - but there was nothing to come back to.

I agree that you can only have so many sequels before a series has progressed beyond its peak, and you are faced with diminishing returns.
But if you miss out on what defined your story to begin with, attempting something new will flop spectacularly.

Case in point: Hawke.
I liked Hawke, and I see what her authors were trying to do. Where DA:O had told an epic tale on a global scale, DA2 showed how small decisions in a single city could become the catalyst for pivotal changes. I even liked the new supporting cast: the elven Wolverine rip-off, the nerdy witch-elf, and of course the narrating dwarf and his beloved crossbow.
But at the end of the day, DA2 was still a lackluster sequel. Its story was so ridiculously railroaded that even the illusion of choice and consequences was completely nullified, and the relationship between the characters never quite reached the same depth as in the predecessor.

All games with plots are driven by the plot, though good plots are driven by the characters (instead of something happening to Shepard all the time, he/she attempts to do something by chasing Saren instead of just reacting to saren's "plot"). Thus, characters are a driving force of plot, it can safely be said that they are the plot. You need strong characters, and while there were strong characters in the Mass Effect series, those specific characters aren't necessarily what made the series; it was the sum of the whole that included the characters.

Dragon Age 2 was not a lackluster sequel because you played as Hawke, or because of the fact that there were new characters in a new area. One thing, at least, I liked about DA2 was that they tried something new in regards to their story. Thedas had developed, it had moved on from Darkspawn.  The real issue was that DA2 suffered from much the same problems as ME3 did, poor direction and writing. In that regard, I tend to think the Citadel DLC and DA2 made similar missteps. They focused so heavily on the characters, and the writers grew to like them so much that they forgot their purpose. Characters don't drive the plot in DA2 or Citadel, the plot drives the plot (i.e. the clone and Brooks following a ridiculous plan just to give us the excuse to fight them, in DA2 that crystal thing is what causes lots of the problems).

You can't make an exact comparison between any games of seperate genres, though I don't see how being open world Fallout and linear story based Bioshock makes my comparisons less valid. They're trying to tell stories in the same medium. While, yes, they do so in very different ways, I'd say New Vegas (plot wise at least) was heavily character focused. Caesar causes the Legion, House attempts to take control, the Lee Oliver tries to win the dam for political reasons. The big difference between Mass Effect and New Vegas is how they allow the player to experience this plot, the rules to a good story don't change because one doesn't force you to partake in the main plot.

Bioshock is the same; Ryan builds the city, Atlas leads a revolution, Jack has to make his way through it. All these characters drive the plot and interact with each other, though there is not much dialogue due to the nature of the game.

My point wasn't that Mass Effect needs to be New Vegas, my point was that you can't recreate the old. It cheapens the new and old both, and leads to nothing new. Shepard's story is (sort of) over, and continuing it would cheapen it. The new Mass Effect won't be one of the original trilogy, and that's a good thing. Calling it "Mass Effect" is simply to show that it's in the same universe.

Sorry for the length, I seem incapable of being brief.

Modifié par Repzik, 10 avril 2013 - 05:31 .

[Getorex]

Those games are each one-offs. They are one-and-done. The only thing that carries forward, or was ever intended to carry forward, was the setting. The characters and the plot were drop-ins that could have been ANY character set or plot. They just follow the mechanic in the setting. There's no continuity, no connection of characters from one to the other.

New York is a great city to place a setting. Every movie that takes place in New York is not part of the same story or characters. They change willy-nilly. The setting remains.

ME wasn't setting with any old characters dropped in from game to game. It was an ongoing story driven by a set number of characters managed through one single character throughout. Nothing like Fallout, Bioshock, etc. Nothing at all like that.

ME's issue going forward is that they took a Reaper plot on exclusively.  THE biggest plot they could have devised, bar none (existential threat to all advanced life in the entire galaxy) and focused solely (and quickly) on resolving that.  1, 2, 3, resolved.  Oops.  EVERY other possible story in that universe will, by necessity, be small potatoes and insignificant.  NO character they could possibly introduce, no conflict, could come even close to living in the shadow of the Shepard/Reaper character and plot. 

It should have been stretched out over many games.  They could have done a lot more exploring of the galaxy and its characters interspersed with the occasional buildup and fleshing out of the big background Reaper plot.  By getting the BIG plot out of the way so fast they now have a huge vacuum left behind. 

Modifié par Getorex, 10 avril 2013 - 05:34 .

[Repzik]

Getorex wrote...

Those games are each one-offs. They are one-and-done. The only thing that carries forward, or was ever intended to carry forward, was the setting. The characters and the plot were drop-ins that could have been ANY character set or plot. They just follow the mechanic in the setting. There's no continuity, no connection of characters from one to the other.

New York is a great city to place a setting. Every movie that takes place in New York is not part of the same story or characters. They change willy-nilly. The setting remains.

Your statement that there is no continuity or connection is simply incorrect. I specifically referenced Fallouts 1, 2 and New Vegas due to the fact that there is continuity, the stories are related. That was part of my point. The setting, world, and characters change and grow with the world, and the world itself is influenced by the various player characters. Granted, they use a canon model for each story's progression (no save imports), but they set the games far enough apart in time or location to ensure that players don't feel like their choices meant nothing. You can't honestly look at Fallout, and ignore characters like Marcus or Tandi (Characters who appear and change in more than one of the games). There's a lot of continuity and connection, just not that much in order to ensure that each game is feasible to do.

Each game in the Fallout series should be seen as it's own story, yes. However, you can see all those large stories connecting into a larger one, the story of the Fallout world as it changes and evolves. It's very similar to how many side quests, plots and characters all come together to form the overall "plot" of a singular game. Most series should be like that eventually; you can't just have the world remain stagnant. Also, the Mass Effect series is one continuous story, the story didn't end at the end of each game. You can pretty much look at it as an episodic approach to game development (plot wise that is). The story has ended now.

Getorex wrote...
ME wasn't setting with any old characters dropped in from game to game. It was an ongoing story driven by a set number of characters managed through one single character throughout. Nothing like Fallout, Bioshock, etc. Nothing at all like that.

See my point on Mass Effect being one story, Fallout games being each their own.

Getorex wrote...
ME's issue going forward is that they took a Reaper plot on exclusively.  THE biggest plot they could have devised, bar none (existential threat to all advanced life in the entire galaxy) and focused solely (and quickly) on resolving that.  1, 2, 3, resolved.  Oops.  EVERY other possible story in that universe will, by necessity, be small potatoes and insignificant.  NO character they could possibly introduce, no conflict, could come even close to living in the shadow of the Shepard/Reaper character and plot. 

The Reapers are characters (Sovereign, Harbinger), and thus drive the plot. Shepard and crew does things to stop them, smaller story arcs occur as other characters try different things.

Nothing can top the Reapers or the Reaper plot in grandness, but stories don't have to be grand to be good. Fallout 1 and 2 have the PC saving the world (basically) from a very powerful and dangerous enemy. New Vegas has you deal with politics in one small region. I actually think New Vegas had the most compelling story of the three.

Getorex wrote...
It should have been stretched out over many games.  They could have done a lot more exploring of the galaxy and its characters interspersed with the occasional buildup and fleshing out of the big background Reaper plot.  By getting the BIG plot out of the way so fast they now have a huge vacuum left behind. 

I agree with you there, making the Space Mecha Cthulu of doom be the antagonistic force and conflict in the series makes other occurances seem less important. However, I feel that if they started a new character in a new area of the universe, that could actually work. Much like how Firefly manages to tell an extremely compelling story with characters just making their way through the galaxy, a new protaganist could accomplish a compelling plot. Having Shepard face a smaller foe would be uninteresting; the player would constantly be burdened with the fact that "I (Shepard) killed Reapers, this dude shouldn't be causing me this much trouble."

Modifié par Repzik, 10 avril 2013 - 06:14 .

[Getorex]

Repzik wrote...

Getorex wrote...
ME's issue going forward is that they took a Reaper plot on exclusively.  THE biggest plot they could have devised, bar none (existential threat to all advanced life in the entire galaxy) and focused solely (and quickly) on resolving that.  1, 2, 3, resolved.  Oops.  EVERY other possible story in that universe will, by necessity, be small potatoes and insignificant.  NO character they could possibly introduce, no conflict, could come even close to living in the shadow of the Shepard/Reaper character and plot. 

The Reapers are characters (Sovereign, Harbinger), and thus drive the plot. Shepard and crew does things to stop them, smaller story arcs occur as other characters try different things.

Getorex wrote...
It should have been stretched out over many games.  They could have done a lot more exploring of the galaxy and its characters interspersed with the occasional buildup and fleshing out of the big background Reaper plot.  By getting the BIG plot out of the way so fast they now have a huge vacuum left behind. 

I agree with you there, making the Space Mecha Cthulu of doom be the antagonistic force and conflict in the series makes other occurances seem less important. However, I feel that if they started a new character in a new area of the universe, that could actually work. Much like how Firefly manages to tell an extremely compelling story with characters just making their way through the galaxy, a new protaganist could accomplish a compelling plot. Having Shepard face a smaller foe would be uninteresting; the player would constantly be burdened with the fact that "I (Shepard) killed Reapers, this dude shouldn't be causing me this much trouble."

You'd run into that issue with ANY new character: I'm Lt Vance and this guy is kicking my ass.  What a sissy, I can't beat this guy but Shepard beat the Reapers.  I'm a big nobody compared to him.  I wish I was like Shepard.  I'll NEVER be a Spectre.  They don't make sissies into Spectres.

Plus nothing of note happened outside the main ME plot because nothing of particular note ever popped up as THE key to beating the Reapers or THE key to allowing Shepard to win this or that fight, etc. Nothing in the codex, nothing in the books.  Any and all other characters and their conflicts are gnats and will naturally be compared to the bumblebee of Shepard.

Nobody would have to wonder if New Guy would be able to match or beat Shepard, it would be abundantly clear that Shepard would use New Guy as buttwipe paper.

Modifié par Getorex, 10 avril 2013 - 06:17 .

[Repzik]

Getorex wrote...
You'd run into that issue with ANY new character: I'm Lt Vance and this guy is kicking my ass.  What a sissy, I can't beat this guy but Shepard beat the Reapers.  I'm a big nobody compared to him.  I wish I was like Shepard.  I'll NEVER be a Spectre.  They don't make sissies into Spectres.

Plus nothing of note happened outside the main ME plot because nothing of particular note ever popped up as THE key to beating the Reapers or THE key to allowing Shepard to win this or that fight, etc. Nothing in the codex, nothing in the books.  Any and all other characters and their conflicts are gnats and will naturally be compared to the bumblebee of Shepard.

Nobody would have to wonder if New Guy would be able to match or beat Shepard, it would be abundantly clear that Shepard would use New Guy as buttwipe paper.

If you have an outlook like that, you simply can't be told stories. "I played Doom, I killed Satan! I shouldn't have a problem with Saren!" If you approach it like that, you simply aren't allowing yourself to be told a new story. Part of being told stories is that you understand the characters and their situations, and see them grow/fall in those situations. In an RPG like Mass Effect, you need to be able to roleplay as a character, and be able to understand that you are a different person in this new story.

In a Role Play sense, that would be awful with Shepard, you already beat the Reaper's as him, no one else is scary. As soon as you drop him, roleplaying as a weaker character is more believable.

As for your issue with nothing key occuring besides the Reapers, I'd like to direct you to Pulp Fiction. If you want to simply quantify that story into one key plot line, then you'd say that delivering the case to Wallace is the main plot. Bruce Willis' arc is completely irrelevant, and should just be ignored. However, if you take out his role, the film is made much lesser by it. While he is irrelevant to the case plot, he is relevant to the overall sort of story of Pulp Fiction.

This works because part of the point of Pulp Fiction is the telling in and of itself, the story is being told in order to tell a story. Same with Mass Effect, and Fallout.

What I'm trying to say is this: side plots may not be as "important" or relevant to the plot as the "main" quest line, but they are important and contribute to the overall experience (I guess that's as good a word for it as any) of the story. For instance, Mass Effect would be a lot different without Zaeed for me (a lot less awesome), but the main plot would be uneffected because he didn't do anything in the plot.

Again, apologies for writing so much, it can be a pain to read.

Modifié par Repzik, 10 avril 2013 - 06:32 .

[Big Bad]

I don't know how exactly BW would pull it off given the endings, but I definitely think the ME universe is big enough and sufficiently interesting enough to support multiple stories. I've said it before, but I bet that many fans of the original Star Trek felt that Kirk and co. were inextricably linked to the Star Trek universe. But then TNG came along and showed that Star Trek could be interesting even without the crew of the original Enterprise.

I think the same thing is possible with Mass Effect, if they put enough effort into creating new compelling characters and stories. I really love the ME universe and would love to experience more of it.

That said, I don't plan on "letting go" of Shepard anytime soon. I just started a new playthrough with a new Shepard yesterday (my first male Shepard in a long time). I'm going to try to do some things I've never done before...

[Getorex]

Repzik wrote...

Getorex wrote...
You'd run into that issue with ANY new character: I'm Lt Vance and this guy is kicking my ass.  What a sissy, I can't beat this guy but Shepard beat the Reapers.  I'm a big nobody compared to him.  I wish I was like Shepard.  I'll NEVER be a Spectre.  They don't make sissies into Spectres.

Plus nothing of note happened outside the main ME plot because nothing of particular note ever popped up as THE key to beating the Reapers or THE key to allowing Shepard to win this or that fight, etc. Nothing in the codex, nothing in the books.  Any and all other characters and their conflicts are gnats and will naturally be compared to the bumblebee of Shepard.

Nobody would have to wonder if New Guy would be able to match or beat Shepard, it would be abundantly clear that Shepard would use New Guy as buttwipe paper.

If you have an outlook like that, you simply can't be told stories. "I played Doom, I killed Satan! I shouldn't have a problem with Saren!" If you approach it like that, you simply aren't allowing yourself to be told a new story. Part of being told stories is that you understand the characters and their situations, and see them grow/fall in those situations. In an RPG like Mass Effect, you need to be able to roleplay as a character, and be able to understand that you are a different person in this new story.

[...]

What I'm trying to say is this: side plots may not be as "important" or relevant to the plot as the "main" quest line, but they are important and contribute to the overall experience (I guess that's as good a word for it as any) of the story. For instance, Mass Effect would be a lot different without Zaeed for me (a lot less awesome), but the main plot would be uneffected because he didn't do anything in the plot.

Again, apologies for writing so much, it can be a pain to read.

I get what you are saying but Pulp fiction side plots took place IN the actual main story.  The story wasn't told first and then afterwards some other movies starring the Bruce Willis character was done, etc.  They were blended together into a coherent whole.  With ME it's too late for that. 

I agree overall with what you present but I feel it is too late.  It should have been done before we ever got to ME3.  It should have happened a bit after ME1, some more after ME2 (which would now be something other than 2...like 3 or 4), and then end the entire thing with ME3 (which would now be something like ME6 or 7).  An entire, cohesive and blended together story with substories got presented and neatly flowed together with the end of the entire series.  You start with Shepard and crew, move to other people an issues for a couple, back to Shepard and crew, back to oher people and issues, and finally back to Shepard and crew.  Shepard and crew being the main cable in the story and the others fleshing it out more. 

They told the main story and now it is a bit late to go back and say, "Oh, by the way, while Shepard was on Feros, Hunter, an Alliance spy, was busy doing this...which was fed back to Shepard and helped him accomplish this..."  followed by, "Oh, and while Shepard was on Noveria, Willard, a colonist, discovered this and experienced that...which was ultimately fed back to Shepard who was able to tie it to this, that, and the other thing and make THIS discovery..." etc.  Too late.  It's after the fact and over now.  Lost opportunity.  Bioware suffered from premature ejaculation and shot the whole wad within seconds of insertion.  Oops.

[Repzik]

Oh, I think the Mass Effect Universe is pretty much done as well, the third game was just abysmal in the writing department (such as the unpleasant implications of pretty much all the endings). I hope someone either gets licenses or buys the rights to Mass Effect sometime (like Obsidian) so it can actually tell a proper send off. If Bioware's staff suddenly changed to what it was six years ago, I would've had no doubt that they could tell another story in the Mass Effect universe as compelling as Shepard's.

I was mainly contesting the point that because the story was so dramatic and had such high stakes, nothing else matters in universe or feels interesting. That's a bit of an overstatement; if you watch Babylon 5, the "big bad" (who are basically one of the major inspirations for the Reapers) is defeated in the fourth season, and there's a whole fifth season of reconstruction. They set up some pretty interesting plots between various factions, that were interesting and could've been made into their own shows all of there own. In a case like that, the original really epic story is sort of the "legend" that started it all, and it gets more grounded and mature from there.

[Peranor]

Done or not I'm still curious where Bioware is taking The-Next-Mass-Effect-Game-That-Should-Not-Be-Referred-To-As-Mass-Effect-4

And then I mean curious in a "how the hell are they going to fix this mess" type of way.

[Spartas Husky]

anorling wrote...




[/i]And then I mean curious in a "how the hell are they going to fix this mess" type of way.

They have tried to ignore it until now, so I dont see any indication that they would change their current train of thought.

And again I state, explaining how a poop cherry got on your pie, doesn't change the fact there is a poop cherry on top.

[Nightwriter]

Does one need to let go of something that was torn from them? Shepard was kind of yanked out of my hands. Or at least, it felt that way to me.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 11 avril 2013 - 11:53 .

[Getorex]

Repzik wrote...

Oh, I think the Mass Effect Universe is pretty much done as well, the third game was just abysmal in the writing department (such as the unpleasant implications of pretty much all the endings). I hope someone either gets licenses or buys the rights to Mass Effect sometime (like Obsidian) so it can actually tell a proper send off. If Bioware's staff suddenly changed to what it was six years ago, I would've had no doubt that they could tell another story in the Mass Effect universe as compelling as Shepard's.

I was mainly contesting the point that because the story was so dramatic and had such high stakes, nothing else matters in universe or feels interesting. That's a bit of an overstatement; if you watch Babylon 5, the "big bad" (who are basically one of the major inspirations for the Reapers) is defeated in the fourth season, and there's a whole fifth season of reconstruction. They set up some pretty interesting plots between various factions, that were interesting and could've been made into their own shows all of there own. In a case like that, the original really epic story is sort of the "legend" that started it all, and it gets more grounded and mature from there.

Babs 5.  THE model that Bioware should have used for ME.  Babs did it really well.  The Shadows big plot was developed over 4 seasons with a lot of other stories and characters fleshing out the Bablylon 5 universe and society.  The Shadows (Reapers) didn't consume the entire plot every week but it was the backbone within the overall story.  That could have been ME.  They could have easily gotten 6 or more games out of it, all of them interesting and all of them adding something new and richer to the overarching story of Shepard and the Reapers.  Babylon 5 wouldn't have worked if they had rushed through the Shadow war and resolution in one season and then went back and tried to fill in around the already dead plot with more stories. 

This is actually why I think an ME reboot is in order in the future (not now, not next year, not in 2 years...but someday) so the entire thing could be replotted, replanned, and redone with LOTS more content and flesh.

[Sentient6]

Letting go of Shepard shouldn't be too hard... He's easily the worst character in the ME universe.

[Getorex]

Sentient6 wrote...

Letting go of Shepard shouldn't be too hard... He's easily the worst character in the ME universe.

He's you (or she's you).  Hate yourself much?

He's also the eyes and ears and viewpoint from which ALL is presented. 

[Getorex]

Nightwriter wrote...

Does one need to let go of something that was torn from them? Shepard was kind of yanked out of my hands. Or at least, it felt that way to me.

What kind of spider is that (do you know)? Coconut spider? 

[Sentient6]

Getorex wrote...

He's you (or she's you).  Hate yourself much?

He's also the eyes and ears and viewpoint from which ALL is presented. 

I think you're confusing ME with HL. Regardless, if you're referring to the moral choice system, it's the main reason why the charater was so bad...

[Nightwriter]

Huntsman spider, most likely.