865 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

So, to be clear:

You think the start of ME3 was "moronic railroading" so, the way you would have opened ME3 (which relies on the events that happen in ME1 and ME2), that would have been less moronic, would be you dislike the wriitng in ME3.

Shepard would work with your dislike of ME3 and he would be doing your dislike of ME3, and that would be a less moronic way of opening ME3? That was your answer? Or that was you trying to shift the subject by expressing your opinion on the game in general and not actually answering the question?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wait what? No, you are completely wrong. I'm not even too sure where you got that.

Right so I'm completely wrong, Shepard wouldn't work with your dislike of ME3, and that wasn't actually you trying to shift the subject by expressing your opinion on the game on general and not actually answering the question.

So can you explain to me, clearly:

How you would make the opening less moronic? Who would Shepard work with? Doing what?

Remember, we know they can't create hundreds of different games. We know that your playthrough is no more important than anyone elses as Bioware has to make one for everyones playthroughs. We know that it can't be the Council and we know that it can't be the Quarians.

You don't need to express your opinion on any parts of ME3, you can in fact completely ignore the events of ME3, you just need to explain how you would open the game that'd be less moronic and which acknowledges all the possible playthroughs of ME1 and 2. All I want you to do is answer that question.

I've already written some loose ideas about that yet you didn't care about them.

Less moronic = write in a coherent manner. As I said, ME writing is all over the place. In order to properly fix the ME triology they would need to fix the entirety of ME2 and a lot of ME3. ME2 is basically irrelevant and ME3 suffers badly from bad writing and that sucide mission where the writers though killing off everyone was a good idea. That's the issue.

[Nightwriter]

David7204 wrote...

The Reapers are not an impossible enemy. A 'MacGuffin' is a perfectly acceptable element of quality writing, and is hence not a derogatory term like you seem to be using it as. And I have confidence a satisfying nonconventional solution to the Reapers could be thought up without significantly changing things before ME 3.

MacGuffins aren't inherently bad, no. But they can go wrong very easily, and this one in particular was bad form.

[Clayless]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I've already written some loose ideas about that yet you didn't care about them.

There's a difference between not caring about something and pointing out the objective reasons why those options wouldn't be possible. Not being in all playthroughs and creating a situation where they'd have to create hundreds of different games is what nullified those ideas.

Less moronic = write in a coherent manner. As I said, ME writing is all over the place. In order to properly fix the ME triology they would need to fix the entirety of ME2 and a lot of ME3. ME2 is basically irrelevant and ME3 suffers badly from bad writing and that sucide mission where the writers though killing off everyone was a good idea. That's the issue.

Ok.

Now by this stage the closest we've gotten to an answer on how you would make the opening of ME3 less moronic is rewrite ME2. It's not really an answer to the criticism of "moronic railroading" as it's effectively a way of saying you can't think of anything that'd be less moronic unless they rewrote ME2, and it doesn't answer who Shepard would work with, and what he would be doing, in the situation we currently have.

I can accept that though. You think that ME3's opening was a case of "moronic railroading" but you can't think of anything that'd be less moronic given the situation at the end of ME2.

Modifié par Robosexual, 26 juin 2013 - 04:53 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I've already written some loose ideas about that yet you didn't care about them.

There's a difference between not caring about something and pointing out the objective reasons why those options wouldn't be possible. Not being in all playthroughs and creating a situation where they'd have to create hundreds of different games is what nullified those ideas.

Less moronic = write in a coherent manner. As I said, ME writing is all over the place. In order to properly fix the ME triology they would need to fix the entirety of ME2 and a lot of ME3. ME2 is basically irrelevant and ME3 suffers badly from bad writing and that sucide mission where the writers though killing off everyone was a good idea. That's the issue.

Ok.

Now by this stage the closest we've gotten to an answer on how you would make the opening of ME3 less moronic is rewrite ME2. It's not really an answer to the criticism of "moronic railroading" as it's effectively a way of saying you can't think of anything that'd be less moronic unless they rewrote ME2, and it doesn't answer who Shepard would work with, and what he would be doing, in the situation we currently have.

I can accept that though. You think that ME3's opening was a case of "moronic railroading" but you can't think of anything that'd be less moronic given the situation at the end of ME2.

You can have differences; when trying to broker peace it would turn out like the Rannoch arc if you did it bad- Quarians attack, Geth getting brainwashed, while if you do everything right, you can better facilitate between the two groups and have them co-operate with each other (like hunting down cerberus cells since they both go played). Shockingly, not everything needs to end in bang-bang guns blazing which is what ME3 pretty much turned into. However that would also base itself on the writing and past events in ME2 which I'm of the opinion need to be changed.

That is the problem. ME2 itself is stupid, so ME3 suffers badly for it. So yes, I can't think of anyway to fix ME3 without having to rehaul ME2 which basically adds nothing to the triology.

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Turn herself in for what? If the Alliance had no evidence why turn herself in. Hackett said "when the Alliance calls." I don't remember the Alliance calling. The only thing Hackett said was "I don't think this is a Cerberus ship anymore." He didn't say it was an Alliance ship either.

You have been working with a known terrorist organization for about a year. Cerberus. Your reputation is thinner than it was two years ago because of that. So what are you going to expect if you walk into an Alliance Military base and confess to a capital offense just because you said you did it because the reapers are coming? A pat on the back?

No. You're going to get thrown in lock up, and you're going to get hung out to dry by Admiral Hackett who is going to disavow any knowledge of your action. Why do you think he didn't take that copy of your report?

No one is going to believe you about the reapers. You are simply going to be thrown in a cell as a terrorist. And you're going to sound like a madwoman screaming about the reapers until they land. You'd be better off just going to the Council and telling them you're done with that Cerberus business, that you took down the Collectors, and you want to go back to business as usual with them, and all Cerberus operatives are off your ship, and yeah, it needs a paint job.

"You're not a Spectre Shepard. You've even abandoned your own people and are working for a known terrorist organisation, you have no leeway or pull. We have no reason to even be having this discussion. Get out."

You can easily be and if the original council survived (implied in this case) and you meet the council during ME2, it's almost impossible NOT to get your spectre status restored (you have to openly side with Cerberus and tell the council off not to have that happen which seems out of character for a moderately Paragon Shep).

-Polaris

[Clayless]

The problem is those differences are too great. You can end ME2 after having the Admirals talk to Legion and suggest peace, but you can also end it having never met the Admirals or Legion, and have Tali die on Haestrom. There's no middle ground there. You couldn't even make those playthroughs start of sorta similar if you wanted to start ME3 there.

@Polaris - If you let the council die and chose Udina you can't be a Spectre. That's not that obscure or hard to have happen.

Modifié par Robosexual, 26 juin 2013 - 05:12 .

[111987]

Robosexual wrote...

The problem is those differences are too great. You can end ME2 after having the Admirals talk to Legion and suggest peace, but you can also end it having never met the Admirals or Legion, and have Tali die on Haestrom. There's no middle ground there. You couldn't even make those playthroughs start of sorta similar if you wanted to start ME3 there.

@Polaris - If you let the council die and chose Udina you can't be a Spectre. That's not that obscure or hard to have happen.

In fact, that is the default Shepard in ME2. So any Renegade player or default player would be screwed.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

111987 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think what Robo is saying is that Bioware has to write a story that is valid for all playthroughs. Therefore they have to account for all the variables. Arrival always happens, regardless of the Shepard. The only difference is whether or not Shepard does it, or the Marines do it.

If Shepard didn't do Arrival, it's not that much of a stretch that Shepard would eventually need to be 'officially' cleared for working with a terrorist group, an 'avowed enemy of the Council'.

These things are held constant in for all Shepard, but other stuff (i.e. status of Geth and Quarians) is not. Besides, it'd be pretty stupid for Shepard too resolve that dilemma off-screen.

NO! --- Shepard got her Spectre status reinstated in the beginning of ME2 and approval to work with Cerberus for the purpose of taking out the Collectors. It was already cleared. -- see? This could have happened. Y U Arrest me? I am a Spectre! U have No authority! I want my lawyer!

And yes, like I said, Arrival happens. It's a matter of who does it. This is why I said for the sake of simplicity they should have just hand waved it. They decided to cut the inquest because not everyone did Arrival. And if one had their spectre status reinstated then working with Cerberus was sanctioned, and if they didn't do Arrival, why would they have an inquest.

The problem is that Shepard got thrown in Lockup anyway, for nothing in some cases, and that made no sense at all. See my other post pretty close to this one.

But not every Shepard gets reinstated as a Spectre, so you have to account for those players. You can't make two entirely seperate openings. And regardless of Spectre status, Shepard actually is still beholden to the Council. Udina and/or Anderson could call in Shepard and Shepard would have no choice but to come in.

Yes I agree, it certainly makes less sense for the Shepards that did get locked up that didn't do Arrival. But there are plenty of other reasons for bringing Shepard in; advice on the Reaper threat, reports on the collectors, public severing of his Cerberus ties, etc.

Ultimately there is no perfect solution though.

A renegade player can still choose Anderson. A default player cannot.

Asking Shepard to come in, yes. Locking up Shepard, no. That's why they should have just hand waved it. It would have been a lot easier on everyone. 

But regardless of spectre status being still beholden to the Council? How do you figure? If Shepard is not a Spectre, how is Shepard beholden to the Council? What if Shepard is working for Aria T'Loak on Omega? Well we know Aria can pull some strings with the Asari Councilor. No, the Council has to ask Shepard to come in as well, unless Shepard is a Spectre, then they can tell Shepard to come in.

You ask Shepard to come in, declare Shepard a hero for saving the colonies and taking down the Collectors, then debrief Shepard about the Collectors and Cerberus (Shepard will want full immunity for this part of the debriefing, and if they give it they will get details as much as was on EDI and what she was able to get from the Illusive Man, Miranda, and Jacob and any members of the crew).

The problem with Arrival was how far up the chain of command the operation went. In that case, once again, no Shepard with a brain would answer questions about that when detained if they did that operation without full immunity. This is where Bioware got into trouble with this Inquest and lockup thing. Shepard was getting hung out to dry by the brass. Now in my fan fiction this is exactly what happens, and there's bad blood between Shepard and Hackett as a result. I saw the handwriting on the wall at the end of the Arrival mission. Have you ever been hung out to dry? Bygones aren't bygones for very long time if ever. Hackett was a f****** idiot. And you got railroaded. There was no option. For a good number of people it made absolutely no sense.

They should have just handwaved it and started with Shepard coming into the building instead of being let out of the holding cell. I was role playing a very angry Shepard at that time. Angry at Vega. Angry at Hackett. Angry at Anderson. Angry at the brass. F*** the Alliance.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 26 juin 2013 - 05:55 .

[David7204]

What exactly would you except to happen when the batarians have footage of Shepard blowing up their system?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Now how would they do that, David?

[KaiserShep]

No one has to worry about that footage. It got taken out along with the relay.

[David7204]

The batarians captured Kenson. They knew she intended to destroy the Relay. The Relay gets destroyed. It's not hard to put two and two together.

[Erez Kristal]

Yes david the batarians captured Kenson they know the alliancce was there.
But the only person who knows about shepard involvement is haccket....(guess who sold you out folks)

The problem here is that its bad railroading.
the events could have easily pick up from the end of me2 free roam.
The problem they had was, how were they going to deal with your companions. who livevd and who died.
Since its impossibile to deal with it. in a proper way. what they ended up doing was getting a cameo for every missing companion.
They should have just cannoned the perfect ending where everybody survive. and kept on going from there. reapers arent here yet. shepard a wanted criminal(since hacket sold him out for promotion)
A hero who still have a galaxy to save.

The only railroading done here is making it so the ending was perfect. meaning if you didnt like a certian character you had to live with them still being alive.
But its a small sacrifice to pay in order to pay with your favorite companions and have the more meaningful choices to do matter 

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 08:11 .

[Malckeor]

Well, I was hopeful at first that they would fix it, but after seeing the PR disaster those hopes were crushed.

Or are you asking when I started to feel that the endings could be bad? I honestly began to smell a scent of bull**** when the Crucible plotline popped up out of nowhere, and the Mars "data cache" was suddenly a huge data library.

[111987]

erezike wrote...

Yes david the batarians captured Kenson they know the alliancce was there.
But the only person who knows about shepard involvement is haccket....(guess who sold you out folks)

The problem here is that its bad railroading.
the events could have easily pick up from the end of me2 free roam.
The problem they had was, how were they going to deal with your companions. who livevd and who died.
Since its impossibile to deal with it. in a proper way. what they ended up doing was getting a cameo for every missing companion.
They should have just cannoned the perfect ending where everybody survive. and kept on going from there. reapers arent here yet. shepard a wanted criminal(since hacket sold him out for promotion)
A hero who still have a galaxy to save.

The only railroading done here is making it so the ending was perfect. meaning if you didnt like a certian character you had to live with them still being alive.
But its a small sacrifice to pay in order to pay with your favorite companions and have the more meaningful choices to do matter 

No offense, but this sounds terrible. in your scenario, many of your choices are outright ignored. And for what? Is the ME3 opening really so bad that it would be worth it to ignore the Suicide Mission?

I certainly don't think so.

[Erez Kristal]

111987 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Yes david the batarians captured Kenson they know the alliancce was there.
But the only person who knows about shepard involvement is haccket....(guess who sold you out folks)

The problem here is that its bad railroading.
the events could have easily pick up from the end of me2 free roam.
The problem they had was, how were they going to deal with your companions. who livevd and who died.
Since its impossibile to deal with it. in a proper way. what they ended up doing was getting a cameo for every missing companion.
They should have just cannoned the perfect ending where everybody survive. and kept on going from there. reapers arent here yet. shepard a wanted criminal(since hacket sold him out for promotion)
A hero who still have a galaxy to save.

The only railroading done here is making it so the ending was perfect. meaning if you didnt like a certian character you had to live with them still being alive.
But its a small sacrifice to pay in order to pay with your favorite companions and have the more meaningful choices to do matter 

No offense, but this sounds terrible. in your scenario, many of your choices are outright ignored. And for what? Is the ME3 opening really so bad that it would be worth it to ignore the Suicide Mission?

I certainly don't think so.

It impossibile for a game to account for all choices
You either have to avoid them like me2 or to do them poorly and water them down like in me3.

The begining of me3 is terribile because it railroaded shepard choices into what i consider stupidity and a role i did not agree with.
My canon shepard would never turn himself in, he would work hard on preparing the galaxy. he would work with cerberus and make sure time would go off tracks/ he would make sure the geth and quarrians would sink into war.
he would scout the batarians and open diplomatic channels through the shadow brooker briding power.
he would help wrex gain control of tuchanka by elimanting rival clan leaders.

He would never sit on his ass for six monthes hoping for a better tomorrow.

What I think they should have done was. Correct your mistakes for you. lost someone on the sucide mission? dont worry hes a live now. we fixed your game for you with meta game. even if you rush to the collectors missions you can save everyone. and why wouldnt you want to save everyone? :-)

[GimmeDaGun]

TheProtheans wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

To many it is, to many it is not. Go and try to do justice for both groups. You can't. People should realise and face it already: This is how fiction and art in general work (it doesn't matter what you consider art or not in this regard, since that's not the point here): sometimes you just don't get what you expect or consider good, though it does not mean that it is not good for someone else. There's no objective good or bad here. For instance I enjoy the ending of the game and the 3rd game very much, many hate it. Others praise the 2nd game to the heavens, while I think it is overrated as hell, and I find it the weakest of the 3 games. So, different tastes and preferences I guess, but there's nothing objective about it. I have 3 friends who play and like ME. Three of us like the ending, one of us doesn't. Does this mean that the ending is objectively good or that the majority likes it? Do the math yourself (I a help a bit though: no, it does not). 

I can understand how people can like the ending based on the something I do not understand or want to understand.
It is similar to Fox News, I just don't understand how one can watch and like that crap.
People liking ME3 just seems like something that unfortunately brings out the worst in humanity.

So you basically say, that if somebody likes the ending of this game and\\or the game itself, then that person is among the worst in humanity? Seriously dude...  This is very childish and I hope you see it too. 

[Erez Kristal]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...


People liking ME3 just seems like something that unfortunately brings out the worst in humanity.

So you basically say, that if somebody likes the ending of this game andor the game itself, then that person is among the worst in humanity? Seriously dude...  This is very childish and I hope you see it too. 

prothean statement is pretty extreme.

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 09:06 .

[Erez Kristal]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Work for who? The Council aren't going to help you because you turned down their Spectre status. They have literally no reason to work with Shepard, especially one who worked for a terrorist organisation and possibly blew up a mass relay whilst working for them.

Why would you negotiate peace between the Geth and Quarians? Tali was exciled and the Geth are murderous machines, the only one that didn't instantly try to murder you is in the posession of Cerberus.

So, work for who? Doing what?

So your certain playthrough rules over all else?

Good to know.

That's not an answer. You don't start up a game with it telling you that your playthrough doesn't count.

So work for who? Doing what?

Heck we can even scrap that "Tali being exciled" thing. The last time I saw Tali she was begging me not to give Veetor to Cerberus. Rumour has it she's dead, killed by the Geth on some planet somewhere.

There is always a high demand for people with the skills of shepard, his crew and his ship. They are the best operatives in the galaxy. 

There are many who would like to hire shepard, Aria, Shadow broker, independent contrachts, The salarian stgs, wealthy asari goverment officials. terra firma. And the list go on and on.

[GimmeDaGun]

erezike wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

To many it is, to many it is not. Go and try to do justice for both groups. You can't. People should realise and face it already: This is how fiction and art in general work (it doesn't matter what you consider art or not in this regard, since that's not the point here): sometimes you just don't get what you expect or consider good, though it does not mean that it is not good for someone else. There's no objective good or bad here. For instance I enjoy the ending of the game and the 3rd game very much, many hate it. Others praise the 2nd game to the heavens, while I think it is overrated as hell, and I find it the weakest of the 3 games. So, different tastes and preferences I guess, but there's nothing objective about it. I have 3 friends who play and like ME. Three of us like the ending, one of us doesn't. Does this mean that the ending is objectively good or that the majority likes it? Do the math yourself (I a help a bit though: no, it does not). 

A good game should appeal to as many of the audiance as it can and also be true to its promise.
mass effect 3 was not as loved as me2 and m1 by the general public.
Not by a longshot.

And it was only because of the story. the gameplay and multiplayer added a lot to game.

Well, I was talking about the story. I prefer ME3's story over ME2's. What you say is very marketing oriented: what I read from your post is, that an artist be it a musician, author or filmmaker (or game producer) should create their products for the sole purpose of (trying to) please  everybody or the wishes of their fanbase (which is so heterogenic and diverse, that you can't even take into consideration all their wishes). I hope you know that's impossible. Also, where's creative freedom in that?

If I want to finish my story in a particular way, let me do it, instead of being forced to write it the way a particular group of people want it to be written. Yes, it is a risk, but when you create something you always take a risk. If your product is hated by many, then it's you who live with the consequences, but at least you stood up for your own vision and dared to show it to the general public. If people like what you did, then good for you, if they don't... well, in that case they don't. 

What you say is true. ME3 caused a big stir among the hardcore fans. Many hated the ending because it was something they did not expect. They wanted the story to end in a different way. Well, **** happens. The writers had a different vision. But it does not make the writing objectively awful. Especially since there are many people who liked the outcome. Not because they understood it, but because it fitted their tastes. 

I know it's something that many of the people who hate the ending and ME3 can't get their heads around, but there are indeed people who like the ending and ME3. But remarks like the one The Protheans wrote are just childish and ridiculous and also feels a bit butthurt. 

I can understand that many of you dislike the ending (I've heard and read all the points and arguments these people have, only they did not convince me), so please in return at least show a bit more understanding towards those who like it. It's not that big of a deal really. 

[Erez Kristal]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Well, I was talking about the story. I prefer ME3's story over ME2's. What you say is very marketing oriented: what I read from your post is, that an artist be it a musician, author or filmmaker (or game producer) should create their products for the sole purpose of (trying to) please  everybody or the wishes of their fanbase (which is so heterogenic and diverse, that you can't even take into consideration all their wishes). I hope you know that's impossible. Also, where's creative freedom in that?

If I want to finish my story in a particular way, let me do it, instead of being forced to write it the way a particular group of people want it to be written. Yes, it is a risk, but when you create something you always take a risk. If your product is hated by many, then it's you who live with the consequences, but at least you stood up for your own vision and dared to show it to the general public. If people like what you did, then good for you, if they don't... well, in that case they don't. 

 

Yes And No.

You are free to express your artistic intergrity. but when you establish a product aka mass effect. people build expections. After the first time you published your product, it is no longer just your own. 
You have started building a trusted fanbase. in the second game you have further strengthen the bond.
When you promise your fans content. telling them that this game will be loyal to the old principles of the mass effect and that their choices will matter. you strengthen those expections. people give you money to deliver.

When you fail to deliver it means you didnt do your job as well as you should.

Now sure there many people who did like the product. but there are a few problems here.

1) this is product watered down and betrayed many aspects of the previous mass effects 
2) when comparing with previous titles the part of the pie who liked mass effect is smaller.
The outrage was bigger. 


As to protehans remark. i was actually agreeing with you, on that one. saying people who liked the ending are the scum of the earth is very extreme and isnt proper.

[TheProtheans]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

To many it is, to many it is not. Go and try to do justice for both groups. You can't. People should realise and face it already: This is how fiction and art in general work (it doesn't matter what you consider art or not in this regard, since that's not the point here): sometimes you just don't get what you expect or consider good, though it does not mean that it is not good for someone else. There's no objective good or bad here. For instance I enjoy the ending of the game and the 3rd game very much, many hate it. Others praise the 2nd game to the heavens, while I think it is overrated as hell, and I find it the weakest of the 3 games. So, different tastes and preferences I guess, but there's nothing objective about it. I have 3 friends who play and like ME. Three of us like the ending, one of us doesn't. Does this mean that the ending is objectively good or that the majority likes it? Do the math yourself (I a help a bit though: no, it does not). 

I can understand how people can like the ending based on the something I do not understand or want to understand.
It is similar to Fox News, I just don't understand how one can watch and like that crap.
People liking ME3 just seems like something that unfortunately brings out the worst in humanity.

So you basically say, that if somebody likes the ending of this game andor the game itself, then that person is among the worst in humanity? Seriously dude...  This is very childish and I hope you see it too. 

You're taking it too serious, it was merely to humour me.

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

111987 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Yes david the batarians captured Kenson they know the alliancce was there.
But the only person who knows about shepard involvement is haccket....(guess who sold you out folks)

The problem here is that its bad railroading.
the events could have easily pick up from the end of me2 free roam.
The problem they had was, how were they going to deal with your companions. who livevd and who died.
Since its impossibile to deal with it. in a proper way. what they ended up doing was getting a cameo for every missing companion.
They should have just cannoned the perfect ending where everybody survive. and kept on going from there. reapers arent here yet. shepard a wanted criminal(since hacket sold him out for promotion)
A hero who still have a galaxy to save.

The only railroading done here is making it so the ending was perfect. meaning if you didnt like a certian character you had to live with them still being alive.
But its a small sacrifice to pay in order to pay with your favorite companions and have the more meaningful choices to do matter 

No offense, but this sounds terrible. in your scenario, many of your choices are outright ignored. And for what? Is the ME3 opening really so bad that it would be worth it to ignore the Suicide Mission?

I certainly don't think so.

It impossibile for a game to account for all choices
You either have to avoid them like me2 or to do them poorly and water them down like in me3.

The begining of me3 is terribile because it railroaded shepard choices into what i consider stupidity and a role i did not agree with.
My canon shepard would never turn himself in, he would work hard on preparing the galaxy. he would work with cerberus and make sure time would go off tracks/ he would make sure the geth and quarrians would sink into war.
he would scout the batarians and open diplomatic channels through the shadow brooker briding power.
he would help wrex gain control of tuchanka by elimanting rival clan leaders.

He would never sit on his ass for six monthes hoping for a better tomorrow.

What I think they should have done was. Correct your mistakes for you. lost someone on the sucide mission? dont worry hes a live now. we fixed your game for you with meta game. even if you rush to the collectors missions you can save everyone. and why wouldnt you want to save everyone? :-)

Hey my canon Shepard would never have worked with cerberus, period. But its not as much your Shepard as you want, you still play him inside the scenarios and paths that Bioware wants, not you, all you do is tweak little of his attitude. paragon or renegade and maybe some minor decisions. Thats it. Its been like this the whole trilogy. In the end it is more up to Bioware what your Shepard does and where he goes than up to you. Theres still a path laid before you and sooner and later you go along a path they tell you. Its an illusion of choice, nothing more.

If you truly had multiple choices that were different and meant something , each game would have taken at least 7 years to make, with huge costs.

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 09:44 .

[Erez Kristal]

How would your canon shepard have solved the collectors?

What would you if your shepard was able to leave cerberus and live?

Someone smart once told me, that the key to railroading is to make you see landmines on each side of the track.
On me1 and me2 shep had no other viable choice.
On the end of me2 he had plenty. me3 railroaded shepard on a foolish course

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 09:45 .