52 réponses à ce sujet

[Big Bad]

I think it's widely acknowledged that trying to account for so many possible choices and plot variables across the trilogy was a pretty daunting task.  Some variables were accounted for brilliantingly (e.g. the genophage arc), some were accounted for rather akwardly (e.g. the Geth VI if Legion died), and some were more-or-less ignored (e.g., the Collector Base). 

I'm assuming that the next ME game will take few, if any, plot decisions from the first trilogy into consideration.  At the very least, it will have a lot fewer to contend with than ME3 did.   I personally think a "clean slate" with new characters and a somewhat-new setting will make it easier for the writers to come up with a coherent and satisfying plot for the game.  That's one reason I remain cautiously optimistic for the future of the Mass Effect Universe.  Granted, if they do a new trilogy, the plot variables will start stacking up again, but hopefully the developers have learned from what worked and what didn't and will have an easier time handling things.

What do you think - will having to take fewer plot variables into consideration make for a better story in the next game?

[Tron Mega]

foresight.

thats what bioware needs when they are making their games.

[ThinkSharp]

Showing the consequences of most choices right away, in the same game, like ME2 does or DA:O, would probably help. It wasn't necessarily the number of choices that caused issues, but that many were very large choices whose consequences were "saved" to be shown off in the future. That's why it becomes so disappointing when a player reaches the results of the rachni or the collector base decisions.

ME actually does all the little choices well. It's why we love the dialogue wheel and squad banter. It's also what makes replaying fun. It's not the large choices that do that.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 14 juin 2013 - 03:06 .

[Walla Walla 06]

I think they'll pick a time period that allows them to ignore decisions made in the initial trilogy completely. That will allow them more freedom in coming up with new plot ideas for the next series of games, but people will still be disappointed by the end if they don't make the new decisions we'll inevitably make mean something.

[Big Bad]

StreetMagic wrote...

I can't even wrap my head around a setting that follows this ME universe. How do you take all of that into account? You either have a giant plot with a Control Shep behaving like the God Emperor Leto in the Dune novels, or you have a wonky organic energy setting with Krogan/Turian/EDI/Human organic-synthetics singing kumbaya for eternity... Or you have a Destroy ending with all civilization either doing moderate reconstruction or major reconstruction and trying to survive a galactic wide wasteland.

There's just no point in carrying on. It's dead.. At least the future is. Perhaps the "Stargazer" sequence is thousands of years in the future and everything is OK, but even then, there still might be a Synthesis or Control Ending.

If they do indeed go with a game set after the first trilogy (and I hope they do), I really don't think they're going to have the ending choice play a big role.  My guess is that they either hand-wave it away somehow or canonize one ending (probably destroy). 

[ThinkSharp]

StreetMagic wrote...

If they pick a time period that predates this one (for example, during Krogan Rebellions or something), it still is kind of bittersweet. It'll always be lingering in the back of your head that civilization and life itself is pointless. It'll all be changed by a little kid in the sky one day. There isn't a sense of the unknown, a sense of hope that gives life to the world. It's ultimately fatalistic.

I know what you mean, but at the same time... Civilization and life (as we know it) isn't pointless simply because it will eventually come to an end. If you believe the worth of a moment can only be found at its end, then all of our lives and our own world shouldn't really have much hope left in them either.

It doesn't mean the game won't be enjoyed for its own merits.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 14 juin 2013 - 03:13 .

[Big Bad]

StreetMagic wrote...

If they pick a time period that predates this one (for example, during Krogan Rebellions or something), it still is kind of bittersweet. It'll always be lingering in the back of your head that civilization and life itself is pointless. It'll all be changed by a little kid in the sky one day. There isn't a sense of the unknown, a sense of hope and drive that gives life to the world. It's ultimately fatalistic.

That's why I hope they actually do a game set after the first trilogy, to show that there is life and hope after the Reapers.  Basically, to take away that fatalistic aftertaste. 

[Big Bad]

Anyway, I didn't really mean for this thread to veer off into a discussion of the endings. The plot variables I'm talking about are more along the lines of who lives and dies during the SM, and things like that. Regardless of when the next game is set, presumably those types of decisions will not be a factor the plot has to contend with.

[CynicalShep]

That might help. Decisions are good and all but if you have several hundred variables the probability of a screw-up (minor or otherwise) grows accordingly. I don't think the "many choices" is what made a mess of ME3 initially. Having to rewrite the whole thing because they decided not to go with the dark energy idea and constantly changing writers was its undoing. Ultimately, as long as there will be stability on the project it will probably be something good. The ME universe has a few fans and a lot of potential for growth. If they play their cards right it will rival the SW universe someday.

[CynicalShep]

StreetMagic wrote...

I really don't see them (plausibly) writing themselves out of it. They made their choice. It's a dead franchise now.

Maybe and maybe not. I'll take a canonized ending if that means they can fully concentrate on making a new ME, if it's an RPG. If they make it Counter Strike in space I'll just move on from the series.

[Big Bad]

StreetMagic wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...
 
The MEuniverse has a few fans and a lot of potential for growth. .

Too bad they didn't realize that while making ME3. Instead the mantra seemed to be "artistic vision" and pushing players into a corner, regardless of their choices. It became a playground for the writers more than the players. "Assuming direct control..."

I really don't see them (plausibly) writing themselves out of it. They made their choice. It's a dead franchise now.

Given the fact that they are actively working on a new game, ME is obviously not actually a dead franchise.  Whether or not that game will be any good is another question.  Like I said in the OP, I am cautiously optimistic. 

[tartif]

Agreed, there are lessons to be learned about plot variables.

For me the best two plot branches were whether you saved the council or not, and whether Wrex survived Virmire. Both had very visible and logical consequences throughout ME2 and ME3. The Citadel felt completely different in ME2 depending on the council choice, either respectful and grateful towards Shepard and humanity, or suspicious to downright hostile. Clan Urdnot is very different under Wrex and Wreav, one on a hopeful path to reconciliation, the other clearly bound to repeat past mistakes. You really feel that you're playing through different stories.

The next story should have a small number, perhaps 3-5, of such major branches that vastly affect plot and tone. Having too many will lead to less effort spent on each, and won't add much value as most people don't replay the games enough times to see all that content.

ME1 had a good mechanic for plot variables that was abandoned in later games: consequences of in-mission actions. One is helping Kirrahe's task force on Virmire. Another is fighting the civilians on Ferros, where they can be either killed or disabled. It would be great to have a substantial part of your decisions made by your actions during missions, instead of y/n choices in dialogues. I also like how helping Kirrahe has an in-mission effect when he helps you on Surkesh. Plot variables having effects during missions is great and should be used more. It's easier to implement than plot or dialogue branches, but still feels consequential and increases replay value.

I think the weakest kind of branching was killing squadmates in ME2. Squadmates dying because of missing ship upgrades or bad expert selection felt contrived. The emotional impact was much lighter than character deaths integrated into the plot, like Kaiden/Ashley, Wrex, Thane or Mordin. The branching it created, on the other hand, was enormous and clearly had negative effects. The writers couldn't base strong narratives on characters that could either be alive and dead. My admittedly simplistic lesson is to just don't do it. All major characters should be predictably present or absent during each part of the story, except for a tiny handful. Player choice can have dramatic and emotional consequences without the death of a character.

I agree that there need to be less plot variables of the kind used in the trilogy. There still need to be many choices as they are a core part of the game, but they should work differently. The important thing is that there are a small handful of major, game-changing branches; that many choices are made through actions during missions, and play out during missions; and that they minimally affect the cast of major characters.

[KaiserShep]

Walla Walla 06 wrote...

I think they'll pick a time period that allows them to ignore decisions made in the initial trilogy completely. That will allow them more freedom in coming up with new plot ideas for the next series of games, but people will still be disappointed by the end if they don't make the new decisions we'll inevitably make mean something.

I don't believe that any span of time makes this possible. The effects of controlling, synthesizing or destroying the reapers entirely would have lasting consequences that won't simply be undone even after a hundred generations. For better or worse, any Mass Effect game that takes place post-reaper war would have to address at least one of these endings in some fashion. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 16 juin 2013 - 03:25 .

[Nole]

They will canonize the most picked Ending and the next game is going to be a First Person Shooter, gg.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I think they learned something. Do not allow plot critical characters in the following game to die.

[Ravensword]

StreetMagic wrote...

I can't even wrap my head around a setting that follows this ME universe. How do you take all of that into account? You either have a giant plot with a Control Shep behaving like the God Emperor Leto in the Dune novels, or you have a wonky organic energy setting with Krogan/Turian/EDI/Human organic-synthetics singing kumbaya for eternity... Or you have a Destroy ending with all civilization either doing moderate reconstruction or major reconstruction and trying to survive a galactic wide wasteland.

There's just no point in carrying on. It's dead.. At least the future is. Perhaps the "Stargazer" sequence is thousands of years in the future and everything is OK, but even then, there still might be a Synthesis or Control Ending.

The next ME game will either be a prequel or a midquel. However, there's also a chance that they'll just reboot the series or the ending of ME3 will be a Lazarus Project 3.0 for a sequel that is set far in the future.

[KaiserShep]

Rebooting the series does not strike me as a possibility. I can't imagine that BioWare would throw so much time and money into a complete remake of the franchise. Funny thing is that if they did decide to do that, I would probably approve of it. If it ended up being worse, then I can just stay away from it and stick with the old trilogy, and if it's actually better with a fixed ending, then hooray for us. Either way, I'd say it's not a wish I'd entertain.

[Big Bad]

WittingEight65 wrote...

They will canonize the most picked Ending and the next game is going to be a First Person Shooter, gg.

I don't have a link handy, but I believe there was a thread earlier this weekend with some Bioware tweets confirming that the next ME game would be an RPG. 

[CptData]

Tron Mega wrote...

foresight.

thats what bioware needs when they are making their games.

This.

Besides that, only -very- few variables did matter in the long run:

- Cure plot
- Morning War plot
- Rachni plot

And out of those three plots, Rachni plot got reduced to a difference of the queen: either it's a "real" one - or a clone. Only Cure plot and Morning war plot had some influence on the story.

All those thousand other variables lead only to different dialogues and more points in the EMS.

Big Bad wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

They will canonize the most picked Ending and the next game is going to be a First Person Shooter, gg.

I
don't have a link handy, but I believe there was a thread earlier this
weekend with some Bioware tweets confirming that the next ME game would
be an RPG. 

So it would be more like ME1 and less like ME3?

Modifié par CptData, 16 juin 2013 - 12:05 .

[Maxster_]

So it would be more like ME1 and less like ME3?

Hardly. RPG is a very broad term.
And giving DA2, ME2 and ME3 - you know, expecting quality RPG from the is foolish.

[Bleachrude]

CptData wrote...

All those thousand other variables lead only to different dialogues and more points in the EMS.

And this is where I think BSN gets spoiled or at the least, not appreciative of what Bioware attempted to do.

Why does the fact that there are say multiple death scenes for the VS during the citadel coup get ignored as "not important" when historically, no other RPG would even bother with it? Unless there was a failure path, every RPG I know STILL allows you to win no matter what choices you make. DA:O gets held up as the last great Bioware RPG, but the final battle, sure the cinematics change but you still end up defeating the archdemon no matter what.

That said, I do agree that there should be a reduction of plot flags. Look at the picture below,


There's *19* squadmates in the picture, all but 5 of them could be dead. I'm simply astounded that BW was able to do what they were in ME3 when it had that many plot flags.

And here's the thing, part of ME's appeal IS the large and wide cast of characters so even though I think BW hampered themselves by having so many characters, it ALSO was a strength of the franchise.

[CptData]

^ because not everyone wants to kill the VS during the coup?

If the decisions of the past had some kind of influence, the showdown between my Shepard and Ashley would have been entirely different: she'd trust Shepard, because he had taken the time to convince her he's still loyal towards the Alliance. However, that's not part in the game.

Keep in mind: most decisions alter tiny details - some you can miss easily.

Thing is, I like those tiny decisions, they make the game feeling rich and add more deepness. On the other hand, important decisions didn't matter that much in the end and even worse: RP decisions didn't matter at all. As I said: if decisions would have made a real difference, Ashley wouldn't question Shepard in the coup and Liara wouldn't try to be Shepard's girlfriend, for example.

Next ME: should be like Heavy Rain.

---

You're right about the squadmates, but also keep in mind most of them can die only once - in the Suicide Mission. And that's one of the biggest issues in the series, even BW admitted it: it looked great on the paper but was a hell-of-a-problem for ME3.

Modifié par CptData, 16 juin 2013 - 12:42 .