307 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

Bleachrude wrote...

re: New Characters
As much as BSN hates it, I don't think you can have a game that ONLY works if you have played the previous two games...to argue that someone should spend $10-15 (admittedly not much) AND between 40-80 hours (this is the one that is way too much investment you're forcing on customers/potential audience members) especially given the relative short attention span games are given by players (1st month is where most of the sales come)?

No, you cannot and I do not believe anyone is truly lobbying for a trilogy that makes it difficult for new coming. By that same token, I cite you (general use) borderline stupid to begin a trilogy at its conclusion and expect to understand everything, or even the overall majority of established lore and plot elements. Therefore, a compromise is needed to bridge this gap. Ironically, BioWare had just the ticket at their disposal and chose not to make any use of it. The trial portion of the introduction sequence would have been an excellent opportunity to provide a summary course of what happened whilst in the context of gameplay.

That is one way to properly bridge the series, especially in lieu of pretending the predecessors simply do not exist and/or effects are non-consequential at best. Instead we ended up with a gimmick that frankly, did very little. I will acknowledge ME3 does try to pay off with the numerous ME1 reference. Alas, how poorly ME2's cast was treated makes it all feel a bit hollow.

[cljqnsnyc]

Honestly, reading between the lines of your statement, I should have just left it at that. It's really not worth debating. You may take from it whatever you choose.

On topic...

I loved the total fan service of "Citadel" and all of it's "empty calories."

[AlanC9]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
No, you cannot and I do not believe anyone is truly lobbying for a trilogy that makes it difficult for new coming. By that same token, I cite you (general use) borderline stupid to begin a trilogy at its conclusion and expect to understand everything, or even the overall majority of established lore and plot elements. Therefore, a compromise is needed to bridge this gap. Ironically, BioWare had just the ticket at their disposal and chose not to make any use of it. The trial portion of the introduction sequence would have been an excellent opportunity to provide a summary course of what happened whilst in the context of gameplay.

Presumably the trial failed some development milestone, since they had intended opening with it at one point. While my guess is that the sequence failed to be interesting for the testers, that's probably just me projecting, since I always thought it was a lousy opening for a game.

[AlanC9]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
No, you cannot and I do not believe anyone is truly lobbying for a trilogy that makes it difficult for new coming. By that same token, I cite you (general use) borderline stupid to begin a trilogy at its conclusion and expect to understand everything, or even the overall majority of established lore and plot elements. Therefore, a compromise is needed to bridge this gap. Ironically, BioWare had just the ticket at their disposal and chose not to make any use of it. The trial portion of the introduction sequence would have been an excellent opportunity to provide a summary course of what happened whilst in the context of gameplay.

Presumably the trial failed some development milestone, since they had intended opening with it at one point, and it looks like they built the sets. While my guess is that the sequence failed to be interesting for the testers, that's probably just me projecting, since I always thought it was a lousy opening for a game.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

Presumably the trial failed some development milestone, since they had intended opening with it at one point. While my guess is that the sequence failed to be interesting for the testers, that's probably just me projecting, since I always thought it was a lousy opening for a game.

Like what we've got now isn't lousy?

[Dean_the_Young]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Presumably the trial failed some development milestone, since they had intended opening with it at one point. While my guess is that the sequence failed to be interesting for the testers, that's probably just me projecting, since I always thought it was a lousy opening for a game.

Like what we've got now isn't lousy?

To you? Only you would know. To the testers and dev milestones? Well, they certainly decided to keep it.

Not, mind you, that what we have being lousy means that their trial attempts weren't even worse.

[Fixers0]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

To you? Only you would know. To the testers and dev milestones? Well, they certainly decided to keep it.

For Reasons unkown, I might add.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Not, mind you, that what we have being lousy means that their trial attempts weren't even worse.

Nobody knows, even from the Beta and scripts leaks I couldn't find much solid information on what the trial was going to be.

[Dean_the_Young]

Fixers0 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

To you? Only you would know. To the testers and dev milestones? Well, they certainly decided to keep it.

For Reasons unkown, I might add.

True, but irrelevant. For whatever reasons there ended up being, one made the cut and the other didn't.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Not, mind you, that what we have being lousy means that their trial attempts weren't even worse.

Nobody knows, even from the Beta and scripts leaks I couldn't find much solid information on what the trial was going to be.

Personally, I suspect that the feedback from Arrival had something to do with that. The premise of the arrest was that Shepard had to have done bad things, but given the number of people who very vocally protested being forced to do so, and maintained that they weren't playing/importing the DLC because their Shepard would never do such a thing, and Bioware quickly got into a situation in which their intended hook wouldn't necessarily catch.

Now, granted, as I liked to point out on the ME2 forum, there are a lot of things Shepards of any alignment have already done that could warrant censure. But a good part of the fanbase was already vocally opposed to ME3 starting off with a trial for things their Shepard didn't do/shouldn't be punished for, and that could very easily have shaped their considerations for a trial scene.

[Fixers0]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

True, but irrelevant. For whatever reasons there ended up being, one made the cut and the other didn't.

As a pointed out however, there'e too little information to make even a remote guess as to what state of development the trial was or why it didn't make it, other then that we don't know a thing.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Personally, I suspect that the feedback from Arrival had something to do with that. The premise of the arrest was that Shepard had to have done bad things, but given the number of people who very vocally protested being forced to do so, and maintained that they weren't playing/importing the DLC because their Shepard would never do such a thing, and Bioware quickly got into a situation in which their intended hook wouldn't necessarily catch.

Now, granted, as I liked to point out on the ME2 forum, there are a lot of things Shepards of any alignment have already done that could warrant censure. But a good part of the fanbase was already vocally opposed to ME3 starting off with a trial for things their Shepard didn't do/shouldn't be punished for, and that could very easily have shaped their considerations for a trial scene.

Well there is of course the infamous "Cerberus railroading" aspect of ME2, which the designers could have always used as an argument to have Shepard be taken in Alliance custody, Arrival as is, really wasn't that important, expect it was the first time the narrative directly tells the player that they have to take responsibilty an some point for their actions, which admittedly they'd had little to no influnce on.

That Said, looking at the opening of ME3 there's still some rather awkard material present such as Shepard being in a detention wing and having to go to a court room, which doesn't make the story any clearer, either these were left in by the designers and they didn't bother to really adjust or, they purposely placed these elements in, to make a vague reference to the trial that was never going to happen.

Modifié par Fixers0, 22 avril 2013 - 11:28 .

[chemiclord]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Honestly, reading between the lines of your statement, I should have just left it at that. It's really not worth debating. You may take from it whatever you choose.

On topic...

I loved the total fan service of "Citadel" and all of it's "empty calories."

And that's fine.  Hey, I did too.

But that still doesn't tell me exactly how I was supposed to interpret what sounded like an absolute dismissal of Realist storytelling.

[chemiclord]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Personally, I suspect that the feedback from Arrival had something to do with that. The premise of the arrest was that Shepard had to have done bad things, but given the number of people who very vocally protested being forced to do so, and maintained that they weren't playing/importing the DLC because their Shepard would never do such a thing, and Bioware quickly got into a situation in which their intended hook wouldn't necessarily catch.

Now, granted, as I liked to point out on the ME2 forum, there are a lot of things Shepards of any alignment have already done that could warrant censure. But a good part of the fanbase was already vocally opposed to ME3 starting off with a trial for things their Shepard didn't do/shouldn't be punished for, and that could very easily have shaped their considerations for a trial scene.

I suspect that had a TON to do with it, actually.

I'm not sure fans understand just how much of the disaster that became ME3's narrative was BECAUSE of feedback from a VERY LOUD section of the fanbase.  It doesn't seem like terribly much of a mystery to me that there was very loud complaining about the Mako and planetary exploration, Harbinger, and the potential trial of Shepard (for example)... and all of those elements were near or outright cut from following iterations.

And before anyone grumbles; no, when fans are seemingly THAT abhorred by a concept... for the most part tweaking it is not an option.  Generally, when you tweak a fan hated element, fans generally wind up hating it MORE, and you see that much even in this series (the Hammerhead and planet scanning, for example, were by and large less preferred than their predecessors).

When fans react to everything they don't like as a narratively crippling or gameplay breaking flaw, you can't be surprised when a developer responds by chopping it out rather than trying to muck with it.

Modifié par chemiclord, 22 avril 2013 - 02:08 .

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Personally, I suspect that the feedback from Arrival had something to do with that. The premise of the arrest was that Shepard had to have done bad things, but given the number of people who very vocally protested being forced to do so, and maintained that they weren't playing/importing the DLC because their Shepard would never do such a thing, and Bioware quickly got into a situation in which their intended hook wouldn't necessarily catch.

Now, granted, as I liked to point out on the ME2 forum, there are a lot of things Shepards of any alignment have already done that could warrant censure. But a good part of the fanbase was already vocally opposed to ME3 starting off with a trial for things their Shepard didn't do/shouldn't be punished for, and that could very easily have shaped their considerations for a trial scene.

I suspect that had a TON to do with it, actually.

I'm not sure fans understand just how much of the disaster that became ME3's narrative was BECAUSE of feedback from a VERY LOUD section of the fanbase.  It doesn't seem like terribly much of a mystery to me that there was very loud complaining about the Mako and planetary exploration, Harbinger, and the potential trial of Shepard (for example)... and all of those elements were near or outright cut from following iterations.

And before anyone grumbles; no, when fans are seemingly THAT abhorred by a concept... for the most part tweaking it is not an option.  Generally, when you tweak a fan hated element, fans generally wind up hating it MORE, and you see that much even in this series (the Hammerhead and planet scanning, for example, were by and large less preferred than their predecessors).

When fans react to everything they don't like as a narratively crippling or gameplay breaking flaw, you can't be surprised when a developer responds by chopping it out rather than trying to muck with it.

I can believe some of ME3's disaster was due to going overboard with"fan feedback" (though some of the things that went right in ME3 were also due to feedback, I should point out)

At any rate, I don't think the trial was cut due to negative feedback on the concept.  If anything, I think players were looking forward to to it; defending their Shepard's choices in the face of false or trumped-up charges.  Seeing who would stand with Shepard and who would speak against Shep.  It would give the player a chance to both catch up with past events and see what kind of splash they made in the galactic community.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

iakus wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Personally, I suspect that the feedback from Arrival had something to do with that. The premise of the arrest was that Shepard had to have done bad things, but given the number of people who very vocally protested being forced to do so, and maintained that they weren't playing/importing the DLC because their Shepard would never do such a thing, and Bioware quickly got into a situation in which their intended hook wouldn't necessarily catch.

Now, granted, as I liked to point out on the ME2 forum, there are a lot of things Shepards of any alignment have already done that could warrant censure. But a good part of the fanbase was already vocally opposed to ME3 starting off with a trial for things their Shepard didn't do/shouldn't be punished for, and that could very easily have shaped their considerations for a trial scene.

I suspect that had a TON to do with it, actually.

I'm not sure fans understand just how much of the disaster that became ME3's narrative was BECAUSE of feedback from a VERY LOUD section of the fanbase.  It doesn't seem like terribly much of a mystery to me that there was very loud complaining about the Mako and planetary exploration, Harbinger, and the potential trial of Shepard (for example)... and all of those elements were near or outright cut from following iterations.

And before anyone grumbles; no, when fans are seemingly THAT abhorred by a concept... for the most part tweaking it is not an option.  Generally, when you tweak a fan hated element, fans generally wind up hating it MORE, and you see that much even in this series (the Hammerhead and planet scanning, for example, were by and large less preferred than their predecessors).

When fans react to everything they don't like as a narratively crippling or gameplay breaking flaw, you can't be surprised when a developer responds by chopping it out rather than trying to muck with it.

I can believe some of ME3's disaster was due to going overboard with"fan feedback" (though some of the things that went right in ME3 were also due to feedback, I should point out)

At any rate, I don't think the trial was cut due to negative feedback on the concept.  If anything, I think players were looking forward to to it; defending their Shepard's choices in the face of false or trumped-up charges.  Seeing who would stand with Shepard and who would speak against Shep.  It would give the player a chance to both catch up with past events and see what kind of splash they made in the galactic community.

Yeah. And that would have been much better than the current intro that we have. They literally just jump right into the game, which is bad for new players. Especially when they claim that the game was marketed to new players.

[Steelcan]

^ Which was a bad idea to begin with

[Kunari801]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Well, they still seemed to do a massive hit-and-miss with fan feedback, despite showing off how much they listened to it.

Since fans contradict eachother on just about every single issue, the best they could ever do would be 50% (Fan 1 wants A, Fan 2 wants not-A), when it isn't even worse (three or more different positions).

Otherwise, a lot of the most persistent feedback wasn't really relevant: people who trawled through threads for non-ending DLC demanding more ending DLC weren't really on topic or relevant to feedback concerns for non-ending DLC.

It just reminds me of that "what would be the worse ending" thread and it seems everything in that thread actually showed up in ME3 lmao.

IIRC, the "what would be the worse ending" thread came out after the leaked script... Perhaps it was already too late to change anything even IF they had wanted too. 

[AresKeith]

The original opening trial was gonna be for the events of Shepard working with Cerberus and/or Arrival depending on if the player did it or not, and it was gonna act as a recap like ME2 did

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

.........that's probably just me projecting, since I always thought it was a lousy opening for a game.

Like what we've got now isn't lousy?

Heh. Didn't say what we got was any better. But putting a trial in front wouldn't have fixed anything. Trial or no, we'd still get the Reapers arriving, the training combat level, Shepard leaving Earth in the Normandy, etc.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 avril 2013 - 05:16 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AresKeith wrote...

The original opening trial was gonna be for the events of Shepard working with Cerberus and/or Arrival depending on if the player did it or not, and it was gonna act as a recap like ME2 did

It makes no sense why this was done away with.

I'd have the trial in the beginning, then have the unified outcome. Despite any words and actions and testimonies, the sentence is the same: the alliance incarcerates you, and you're imprisoned for the next 6 months.

I think they should have gone with a couple of options for confinement: 1) If you're pro-alliance or paragon, you're uder house arrest. 2) If you're pro-cerberus or renegade or neutral, you're full on locked up in an alliance detention facility with a lot more restrictive measures against you.

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yeah. And that would have been much better than the current intro that we have. They literally just jump right into the game, which is bad for new players. Especially when they claim that the game was marketed to new players.

Is that actually bad for new players? What do they miss that they need to know?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yeah. And that would have been much better than the current intro that we have. They literally just jump right into the game, which is bad for new players. Especially when they claim that the game was marketed to new players.

Is that actually bad for new players? What do they miss that they need to know?

Characters, galactic events, races, organizations, history, exposition in general. And since the codex in ME3 is so badly made...

Even for old hands, the game just literally takes off. You're left wondering who the **** this Vega guy is and how he has anything to do with the plot or Shepard. Yeah you know the events of the prior games, but suddenly you've just spent the last 6 months under arrest by the alliance, and you're wanting to know what the hell is going on.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 22 avril 2013 - 05:28 .

[cljqnsnyc]

chemiclord wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Honestly, reading between the lines of your statement, I should have just left it at that. It's really not worth debating. You may take from it whatever you choose.

On topic...

I loved the total fan service of "Citadel" and all of it's "empty calories."

And that's fine.  Hey, I did too.

But that still doesn't tell me exactly how I was supposed to interpret what sounded like an absolute dismissal of Realist storytelling.

That isn't at all what I meant. A good story is a good story, no matter the tone. My statement was more about ME3's ending and the "Citadel" dlc, that no one is forced to install, yet want to complain about. The game's end did not refelect the Shep I created and played through 3 games. It offered up a ridiculous set of choices, none making any sense, even contradicting the established lore. I wouldn't call that great or even realistic storytelling. With the help of MEHEM, "Citadel" allowed me to end things the way I wanted to, which is how it should have been all along.

In my view, "Citadel" was clearly aimed at those who were disapponted. It doesn't fit the tone and feels completely at odds with the dire circumstances of the story. Sort of like softening up someone before you move in for the kill. I guess that may be at the heart of the complaints. If I didn't have the mod as an option, maybe I would have called it "fan service" as well.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that realistic storytelling has no place in entertainment. It's fine though. 10 people can read the same story and come away with 20 different meanings.  


 

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 22 avril 2013 - 05:32 .

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

 Love how there is no word of any critique that led to those DLCs. No words of the ending ****storm that brought the extended cut, nothing about Day-1-DLC and nothing about Omega being two hours of shooting up Cerberus.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

 Love how there is no word of any critique that led to those DLCs. No words of the ending ****storm that brought the extended cut, nothing about Day-1-DLC and nothing about Omega being two hours of shooting up Cerberus.

Criticism doesn't exist in BioWare-land.

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

 Love how there is no word of any critique that led to those DLCs. No words of the ending ****storm that brought the extended cut, nothing about Day-1-DLC and nothing about Omega being two hours of shooting up Cerberus.

Criticism doesn't exist in BioWare-land.

Hm. I'm sure Comrade Putin would like it.

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Is that actually bad for new players? What do they miss that they need to know?

Characters, galactic events, races, organizations, history, exposition in general. And since the codex in ME3 is so badly made...

What's wrong with the Codex? And you really think a trial that included "Characters, galactic events, races, organizations, history, exposition" would have held the new players' interest? And again, what out of this would they actually need to know at the beginning? You can get the genophage backstory when it becomes a plot point, for instance.

Even for old hands, the game just literally takes off. You're left wondering who the **** this Vega guy is and how he has anything to do with the plot or Shepard. Yeah you know the events of the prior games, but suddenly you've just spent the last 6 months under arrest by the alliance, and you're wanting to know what the hell is going on.

Vega? He was just another Alliance soldier whom Shepard's known for a little while. He isn't built up as anything else. And yes, we do want to know what's going on. So does Shepard, who's a bit out if the loop at the opening.