225 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Do you think that Mass Effect Universe Side-quests didn't have anything to do with Mass Effect 3(The Recovery of a Cerberus agent data on the Omega Nebula in ME2, for example) and some DLCs, like Liara becoming the Shadow Broker even if you didn't do it, and some minor occurrences, like having more guns or Dr.Gavin Archer appearing, you still being arrested on Earth even if you didn't blew the Alpha relay, introducing the Catalyst, the super gun that defeats Reapers on ME3:

Was because Mass Effect 3 was intended for new players?

Come on, let's see the reviews: Intended for new players
Bla, bla, bla.

So, if it wasn't intended for new players, would you think that the Mass Effect Storyline could go different?

Discuss and please keep it civil.

Edit: Having more guns or Dr Gavin Archer appearing not More guns on Dr.Gavin Archer

Modifié par MegaIllusiveMan, 28 avril 2013 - 11:30 .

[arial]

OP seems to be flame-baiting..

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

I imagine the intro would be somewhat altered and certain other quests (notably the Consensus mission) would be cut or altered so as to prevent redundancy but I doubt it'd be significantly different.

Of course, if the game wasn't designed with new players in mind, it wouldn't be nearly as attractive or enjoyable for those new players. You'll wind up with a situation similar to TW2: no matter how well written it may be, new players just won't feel attached to the story and will have difficulty actually getting through it. I've more than a few friends who've expressed such gripes.

[ThinkSharp]

I don't think it's just about new players. There's also "the player who chose something different."

I think this is one reason, though perhaps not the main reason, that some bigger choices get railroaded or diminished in the game. They didn't want players to feel like the missed out on anything just because they made one choice and not another. The Rachni immediately comes to mind, here. I distinctly remember Hudson discussing this in an interview once, but can't recall the source. Sorry.

Personally I think they played it a little too safe. As long as the divergent events were both intriguing and well-developed, I think it'd be accepted by players. Then there's also the problem of pulling it all back together, but again, I think there was some lost potential there. Either way, I see that as a bigger reason for this type of thing than simply the fear of locking out new players.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 28 avril 2013 - 03:48 .

[Armass81]

What went wrong?

Bioware bit off more than they could chew. The story simply became too complicated with the multiple decisions and killable characters, which lead to some odd decisions, cuts and railroading to keep it on track. The fact that they were making it up as they went only made it worse. In the end they also wanted to cater to everyone, new players and old fans, which also lead to problems and some decisions ending only in cosmetic changes or not mattering at all.

Modifié par Armass81, 28 avril 2013 - 02:18 .

[Wayning_Star]

Fans merely want more. Bioware are undoubtedly aware of this. Immersion..

[Kunari801]

Armass81 wrote...

What went wrong?

Bioware bit off more than they could chew. The story simply became too complicated with the multiple decisions and killable characters, which lead to some odd decisions, cuts and railroading to keep it on track. The fact that they were making it up as they went only made it worse. In the end they also wanted to cater to everyone, new players and old fans, which also lead to problems and some decisions ending only in cosmetic changes or not mattering at all.

While there are issues with the whole plot in ME3, it's really the elephant in the room as the root cause of fan disgust with ME3. The RBG endings, even the EC isn't really enough. ME3 did not end with most players feeling victorious.

[SpamBot2000]

What went wrong? They made Mac Walters "Lead Writer".

[Sebby]

ME2 made it clear Bioware wasn't going to do much with save imports. ME3's handling was actually an improvement as Renegades weren't screwed as much with less content and imports had some impact on Rannoch and Tuchanka(even if it's ultimately interchangeable fluff).

[AlexMBrennan]

Side quests, by definition, don't have much impact on the main plot and there is nothing wrong with that per se - a good example is Fallout NV where you can help out various factions with the war effort prior to the final battle. They are not essential but make the player feel more involved in the events and the fictional world.

ME doesn't do terribly well on that front - side quests in ME1 and ME2 are completely unrelated to the plot (making the player wonder why the hell they are doing them at all - e.g. Scanning keepers). ME3 side quests are better.

So the real problem is that Bioware out critical plot development in optional DLC (LotSB, Arrival), and I am not convinced that there is a good way of dealing with that short of retconning thm to have happened anyway (i.e. Shepard always helped Liara take down the SB regardless or whether you bought the DLC or are trying to import a character that hasn't completed that quest)

[o Ventus]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

I imagine the intro would be somewhat altered and certain other quests (notably the Consensus mission) would be cut or altered so as to prevent redundancy but I doubt it'd be significantly different.

Of course, if the game wasn't designed with new players in mind, it wouldn't be nearly as attractive or enjoyable for those new players. You'll wind up with a situation similar to TW2: no matter how well written it may be, new players just won't feel attached to the story and will have difficulty actually getting through it. I've more than a few friends who've expressed such gripes.

I would be perfectly fine with that.

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...


ME doesn't do terribly well on that front - side quests in ME1 and ME2 are completely unrelated to the plot (making the player wonder why the hell they are doing them at all - e.g. Scanning keepers). ME3 side quests are better.

I'm going to defend ME2's lack of sidequest integration here, at least a little. The N7 missions can be discovered while Shepard is engaged in mining to support researching upgrades. If the PC literally stumbles onto a situation while doing something else, the bar for "why am I doing this" is pretty low. And a plot structure like ME2's, where the PC doesn't know how to advance the main plot at some points, is good if you want to write a lot of content that isn't really tied to the main plot.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Bump;

[Modius Prime]

Yes. The game was overwhelmingly made for new players. For example: Did you play Lotsb? Lol who cares, Liara became the Shadowbroker without you. Did you make Anderson the councilor? Lol, Udina is the Councilor. Did you kill the Rachni? Yes, I did, but we'll replace it with a breeder instead. Oh, and don't even bring up James/Diana Allers QQ

[Mangalores]

Modius Prime wrote...

.... Oh, and don't even bring up James/Diana Allers QQ

What's the point of Diana Allers even from a new player perspective?

[Modius Prime]

Mangalores wrote...

Modius Prime wrote...

.... Oh, and don't even bring up James/Diana Allers QQ

What's the point of Diana Allers even from a new player perspective?

They're essentially designed for the new players. James is a new squadmate that new players can feel more connected to because there really isn't much that much of a history between you and him, other than him babysitting you while under house arrest.; I just didn't really feel attatched to James like I did to Garrus, Ash/Kaidan, Liara, ect, because there really wasn't much of a connection/establishment between my Shepard and him. Diana Allers really didn't have much meaning to the trilogy at all. She just took up a spot on the ship that could have been used for another squadmate.

[Linkenski]

ME3 is definitely the closest thing to Bioware selling out, i've seen yet. The marketing for ME2 was bad, but at least it didn't really interfere with the actual product, whereas in ME3, the marketing made me wanna puke. It was pure propaganda man. The focus on "Earth" and "all-out-war" was a big "come in CoD fans!" right from the getgo. I understand that EA would want this, but i simply cannot get behind that Bioware actually allowed this crap to get through, and effectively ruin their own story and franchise.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the heck out of the MP and also the Combat in the singleplayer campaign, but the story had me shaking my head from start to finish. Everything is black and white. The Reapers are now a selling point for Bioware to say "come and see our awesome take on Michael Bay's Transformers" The characters are not themselves (litteraly too.. they don't look like they should in many cases) and the writers seemed to have forgotten where they left off in ME2, because ME3's plot dropped too many threads from ME1 and ME2. Sometimes i don't even consider any of ME3 to be canon, because it doesn't feel like Mass Effect at all.

[AlanC9]

Modius Prime wrote...

Yes. The game was overwhelmingly made for new players. For example: Did you play Lotsb? Lol who cares, Liara became the Shadowbroker without you. Did you make Anderson the councilor? Lol, Udina is the Councilor. Did you kill the Rachni? Yes, I did, but we'll replace it with a breeder instead. Oh, and don't even bring up James/Diana Allers QQ

What percentage of ME2 players do you figure played LotSB? It isn't all of us; if it's half I'd be astounded.

What's the argument here, anyway? That because there are so many new players for each installment (50% according to Bio for ME2, maybe about the same for ME3), Bio didn't want to expend resources on divergent game paths for different saves?

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 avril 2013 - 10:03 .

[Archonsg]

They made it up as they went along.
And at this point it seemed that Shepard's Story really needed 4 or 5 games to complete, not three.

ME1 - Shepard's introduction
ME2 - Schism between possible player Faction. Cerberus / Council
ME3 - Race to find the Reaper Solution
ME4 - Reaper War
ME5 - Aftermath

The problem, scope.
Its *huge*
EA/Bioware's solution, make each episode a "standalone", when it as been advertised otherwise.

To be honest given what Bioware has done, it was a very good attempt. Actually it would have worked beautifully, as I believe for many, the last installment played out very well. It's just because it ended poorly that set those who would otherwise accept the game flaws, lore bending and all, to put the entire game under a microscope.

Modifié par Archonsg, 28 avril 2013 - 09:43 .

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Modius Prime wrote...

Mangalores wrote...

Modius Prime wrote...

.... Oh, and don't even bring up James/Diana Allers QQ

What's the point of Diana Allers even from a new player perspective?

They're essentially designed for the new players. James is a new squadmate that new players can feel more connected to because there really isn't much that much of a history between you and him, other than him babysitting you while under house arrest.; I just didn't really feel attatched to James like I did to Garrus, Ash/Kaidan, Liara, ect, because there really wasn't much of a connection/establishment between my Shepard and him. Diana Allers really didn't have much meaning to the trilogy at all. She just took up a spot on the ship that could have been used for another squadmate.

Or another Reporter that Shepard knew from the trilogy, like Emily Wong

[spockjedi]

Archonsg wrote...

They made it up as they went along.
And at this point it seemed that Shepard's Story really needed 4 or 5 games to complete, not three.

ME1 - Shepard's introduction
ME2 - Schism between possible player Faction. Cerberus / Council
ME3 - Race to find the Reaper Solution
ME4 - Reaper War
ME5 - Aftermath

The problem, scope.
Its *huge*
EA/Bioware's solution, make each episode a "standalone", when it as been advertised otherwise.

To be honest given what Bioware has done, it was a very good attempt. Actually it would have worked beautifully, as I believe for many, the last installment played out very well. It's just because it ended poorly that set those who would otherwise accept the game flaws, lore bending and all, to put the entire game under a microscope.

Good points. I also imagined a five-episodes series like this:

- ME1: Discover the Reaper threat
- ME2: Stop the Collectors and learn more about the Reapers.
- ME3: Find a way to stop the Reapers. Stop Cerberus.
- ME4: Unite the Galaxy. Prepare for the Reaper Invasion. Repel the first Reaper wave.
-ME5: Stop the Reapers. Go to the Dark Space. Kill Harbinger "on foot". Good ending: marriage, old age and lots of little (blue) children.

Modifié par spockjedi, 28 avril 2013 - 10:16 .

[Mangalores]

Concerning Allers I'm really asking what they were thinking. It's a bland character that serves no purpose than looking cute in a tight outfit. We have Afterlife and Purgatory for that!

Archonsg wrote...

They made it up as they went along.
And at this point it seemed that Shepard's Story really needed 4 or 5 games to complete, not three.

ME1 - Shepard's introduction
ME2 - Schism between possible player Faction. Cerberus / Council
ME3 - Race to find the Reaper Solution
ME4 - Reaper War
ME5 - Aftermath
...

You could just cut ME2 and ME5 from the list and have your trilogy. The Schism of ME2 is inconsequential and given the mook vilian character of branded terrorists in action figure uniforms totally bland. You could have worked that conflict in your ME3 story of race to find the Reaper solution and place it in the Terminus systems. It's not like Shepard is all cuddly with the council so crossovers with not insane Cerberus agents and you get your conflict while progressing the main story arc.

There is simply no real reason to make a big fuss about Cerberus. If that something they got from fan reactions, well, that would have been something they should have better ignored from fan reactions. Cerberus serves no plot point of the Reaper arc.

Aftermath is imo not really necessary. There will always be some heartache at the end of a triology and people want more but usually they shouldn't get it because it rarely to never works (which makes me critical of ME4. They in essence will need to make some to disconnect it from the Shepard trilogy or imho they will be in trouble). The endings just have to be good and fulfilling.

Modifié par Mangalores, 28 avril 2013 - 10:42 .

[Redbelle]

Problems..... for new players and old alike.

It wasn't Mass Effect, it was mass effect lite. Here comes the explanation.

The guy's at BW had to pack a whole lot of stuff into that game which would round off the trilogy. And curiously it seem's to me to be a case of, to much to do, which resulted in cutting thing's the fan's had come to expect. Gameplay wise it had devolved into just a cover shooter with a unique, well developed story line predating the 3rd game.

The problem with cutting gameplay element's, whether fan's call for cut's or development cycle's demand them, is that usually nothing goes into replace what has been removed. Except in this case the cut's had been replaced with fetch quest's. Except the fetch quest's felt alien to ME. ME has rich story's of personal contact and the ability to persue a line of questioning, pat the guy on the head or kick him in the goolie's. ME's fetch quest's gave us anoymous...... I wouldn't even call them people, let's just call them quest giver's, in substiute of a well rounded and thought out personality to interogate. A "Why do you need the pillar's of wisdom"! dialogue choice would have been better than evesdropping on a conversation and picking up a quest that way.

I ran through the citadel without pause and picked up quest's I had no idea why they appeared. I never stopped to listen to teh conversation's. That's a pretty bad way to give out a quest.

The autodialogue problem is not actually the auto dialogue problem. It's a lack of dialogue choice problem, or point's in a conversation where a decision must be made, but the writer's make it for us.

Take EDI for example. Assualt the Cerberus base and EDI come's along with no say from the player to agree or disagree. WE later learn that EDI is instrumental in the squad not getting spaced.

This I feel is a failure of the developer's to understand the point of the game. The assualt on the cerberus base was not a loyalty mission-esque mission. The point of the game is to allow the player to choose the course of action. By feeding us down a path we have no choice in going down, and more importantly, by giving the gamer no say in this decision, the premise of player decision making is damaged. Granted, EDI has alot of insight into the Cerberus base which as a story player I enjoy. But by forcing me to take her, instead of giving me a huge hint that this character will be extremely useful and really really really ought to go...... I feel annoyed that the game mechanic's that allow player's to choose were crippled in that instance, and other instances..... and that the writing had to work to justify the taking the choice out of the player's hands.

Another problem (last one for now). Combat at the start of the game. Or the orienation for getting off earth to the Normandy. They gave us a gun to fast.

Give a guy a gun and they develop tunnel vision. Their eye movement's and mouse control alter from what they do when they are walking or running.The aiming reticle become's a focal point that keep's the eye locked on that point. Compare this to ME2's opening where you had no gun and had to space walk through a blown to hell Normandy where bulk heads had been ripped away to reveal star's and a nearby planet. No gun or pistol there to distract us from the spectacle of what was happening. The Reaper invasion of Eath was a major event. And rather than give us a gun at the start of it. I think they should have coreographed event's to show what a Reaper invasion could do to a city, and then give Shepard a gun after he met the vent boy. Basically, the start of the game should not have tried to orientate player's to quickly to the game control's when story orientation need to occur at the same time to nail home the horrer and helplessness of what the Reaper's were doing to Earth at the time.

Modifié par Redbelle, 28 avril 2013 - 11:15 .