20 réponses à ce sujet

[sambshep]

After getting bored of single player ME3, and mostly disinterested in multiplayer, I decided to do another playthrough of ME2. Several hours into ME2, I suddenly realized what a missed opportunity BioWare let fall through the cracks for a potentially awesome storyline and direction.

To summarize and condense a massive story and universe, we learn in ME1 that we must stop a rogue Spectre agent who is serving an enemy bent on destroying all life in the universe. Your allegiance is to the Alliance and humanity, while making alien friends along the way. Then comes along ME2; you die, are resurrected, and are suddenly in cohorts with Cerberus (whether you deny it or not). Throughout ME2 your friends from the past question not only Cerberus' motives but your own as well, while at the same time TIM and Miranda try to convince you of Cerberus' worthy goals.

Now, where the missed opportunity comes into play starts at the beginning of ME3. Based on your choices in ME2, your loyalties could have been in favor of the Alliance or Cerberus, with loyalty towards the Alliance causing the game to play out pretty much the same it does currently, while conversely if your loyalty sits with Cerberus the story could have taken a COMPLETELY different route. You don't turn yourself in to the Alliance, instead you stay with Cerberus and the Alliance becomes your enemy. Kai Leng could become a squadmate, Kaidan/Ashley and Vega are enemies.

Not only would this divergence have created the opportunity for different missions, but the story would have been drastically different, offering for more re-playability and been a better representation of the Mass Effect series because of your choice in loyalties. With the way ME2 panned out it was already setup perfectly for such a storyline, and fits well with the ending to ME3.

In conclusion, I hope BioWare can incorporate something to this degree in the "ME4" game. Rather than adhere to a rigid story in a game full of choices, open up the story to expand in numerous directions to compliment the foundation of which the ME series sits upon: freedom of choice.

[Kataphrut94]

A lot of people have considered this, but I personally think Mass Effect 3 did the right thing by eliminating the faction choices from dialogue. In Mass Effect 1, Paragon and Renegade often meant being inclusive or a space racist. In Mass Effect 2, it meant whining about being forced to work for Cerberus or wanting to be the next Kai Leng. That's why Paragon was always the more popular alignment- while it was fun to push people out windows and punch reporters, nobody wanted to roleplay a racist or act like they appreciated the Cerberus railroading.

Also, it begs the question of why it would be a good idea to rejoin Cerberus. Mass Effect 3 is all about the war with the Reapers and building alliances with the rest of the galaxy. The one benefit Cerberus had over the Alliance in Mass Effect 2 was that they were the only ones who believed Shepard about the Reapers and that advantage is long gone by ME3. The Alliance have the armies, the authority and the willingness to be diplomatic. Not to mention that every character associated with Cerberus is a ponce at best, while the Alliance has cool people like Hackett, Anderson, Vega, Traynor, Steve, Adams & a whole bunch of alien squadmates who'd be more comfortable working with them than with the human supremacy group.

[Eamon696]

sambshep wrote...

After getting bored of single player ME3, and mostly disinterested in multiplayer, I decided to do another playthrough of ME2. Several hours into ME2, I suddenly realized what a missed opportunity BioWare let fall through the cracks for a potentially awesome storyline and direction.

To summarize and condense a massive story and universe, we learn in ME1 that we must stop a rogue Spectre agent who is serving an enemy bent on destroying all life in the universe. Your allegiance is to the Alliance and humanity, while making alien friends along the way. Then comes along ME2; you die, are resurrected, and are suddenly in cohorts with Cerberus (whether you deny it or not). Throughout ME2 your friends from the past question not only Cerberus' motives but your own as well, while at the same time TIM and Miranda try to convince you of Cerberus' worthy goals.

Now, where the missed opportunity comes into play starts at the beginning of ME3. Based on your choices in ME2, your loyalties could have been in favor of the Alliance or Cerberus, with loyalty towards the Alliance causing the game to play out pretty much the same it does currently, while conversely if your loyalty sits with Cerberus the story could have taken a COMPLETELY different route. You don't turn yourself in to the Alliance, instead you stay with Cerberus and the Alliance becomes your enemy. Kai Leng could become a squadmate, Kaidan/Ashley and Vega are enemies.

Not only would this divergence have created the opportunity for different missions, but the story would have been drastically different, offering for more re-playability and been a better representation of the Mass Effect series because of your choice in loyalties. With the way ME2 panned out it was already setup perfectly for such a storyline, and fits well with the ending to ME3.

In conclusion, I hope BioWare can incorporate something to this degree in the "ME4" game. Rather than adhere to a rigid story in a game full of choices, open up the story to expand in numerous directions to compliment the foundation of which the ME series sits upon: freedom of choice.

While I believe that this is a decent idea, as it would indeed add a tremendous amount of replayability, it would be as if Bioware made 2 games.  It would be incredibly expensive for Bioware to make two different storylines, sets of squadmates, different missions, etc.  It's not feasible for a game like Mass Effect which doesn't garner enough sales to cover such an investment that this approach would require.

To be honest( and I know I'm not in the majority on this one), Mass Effect 3 is a great game and my second favorite Mass Effect game after 2.  To me, it's fine how it is( although I wish they could have reduced the autodialogue, and had a better ending).

[AlanC9]

sambshep wrote...
Now, where the missed opportunity comes into play starts at the beginning of ME3. Based on your choices in ME2, your loyalties could have been in favor of the Alliance or Cerberus, with loyalty towards the Alliance causing the game to play out pretty much the same it does currently, while conversely if your loyalty sits with Cerberus the story could have taken a COMPLETELY different route. You don't turn yourself in to the Alliance, instead you stay with Cerberus and the Alliance becomes your enemy. Kai Leng could become a squadmate, Kaidan/Ashley and Vega are enemies.

How much content would you be willing to see cut from the existing ME3 to make this work? The more different this stuff is the more dev time it takes.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juillet 2013 - 08:06 .

[Fixers0]

The distinct lack of heroism in ME1's renegade dialogue paths made me appreciate them more then the later installments.

[blitzkkrieg]

I also would have liked to see Cerberus as a potential ally in the third installment, but as previously said it would have been a tremendous cost of resources to make it happen. That being said, I have the same hopes for the next game; I think it would be interesting to see (assuming the game is set after the reaper war) a new Cerberus, reshaped after all the damage and atrocities it went through.

[sambshep]

Yeah I understand that the developers only have so many resources to pack into the game.It's very apparent when you look at the difference in the Citadel between ME1 and ME2; ME1 can have a gigantic Citadel because there is no Omega Station. However, given the results for single player DLC, I don't think it's an impossibility to incorporate something along the lines of a pro-cerberus storyline, it's just a matter of figuring out what parts of the game to remove to make room for it.

For example, if they removed all of the minor side missions (that hardly meant anything to begin with) and didn't have to contend with multiplayer for resources, a Cerberus/Alliance diverging storyline could've easily been possible.

That being said, I enjoyed ME3 for the most part with the exception of the auto-dialogue and forced plot developments (for example, the Kai Leng/Ship fight was one of the laziest ways I've ever seen a plot develop).

[xNYROx]

My biggest hope for ME 4 is that they do not stray further away from it being an RPG. They seem to be phasing out the RPG aspects of the game slowly over each release.

[MrFob]

I think the root for most of ME3's most blatant story problems are actually rooted in ME2.

In terms of divergence, I think BW went as far as they could in ME3. You can't just pack two games into one. Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see plot divergence with different missions and everything, not only in ME3 but already in ME2 (I'd have loved to have the choice whether I join Cerberus or the alliance). However, we have to consider the resources of the developers here, both in terms of money and time as well as disk space and system performance. You could have had divergence but you'd also have gotten half as long a game. I don't blame them for going the route they did in that regard.

Modifié par MrFob, 22 juillet 2013 - 04:59 .

[xNYROx]

MrFob wrote...

I think the root for most of ME3's most blatant story problems are actually rooted in ME2.

In terms of divergence, I think BW went as far as they could in ME3. You can't just pack two games into one. Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see plot divergence with different missions and everything, not only in ME3 but already in ME2 (I'd have loved to have the choice whether I join Cerberus or the alliance). However, we have to consider the resources of the developers here, both in terms of money and time as well as disk space and system performance. You could have had divergence but you'd also have gotten half as long a game. I don't blame them for going the route they did in that regard.

They are pretty much owned by EA now, the resources are limitless arn't they?

[MrFob]

xNYROx wrote...

MrFob wrote...

I think the root for most of ME3's most blatant story problems are actually rooted in ME2.

In terms of divergence, I think BW went as far as they could in ME3. You can't just pack two games into one. Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see plot divergence with different missions and everything, not only in ME3 but already in ME2 (I'd have loved to have the choice whether I join Cerberus or the alliance). However, we have to consider the resources of the developers here, both in terms of money and time as well as disk space and system performance. You could have had divergence but you'd also have gotten half as long a game. I don't blame them for going the route they did in that regard.

They are pretty much owned by EA now, the resources are limitless arn't they?

It's EA, they want to make a profit. ME3 was a very decent game in terms of content. Expecting to just more or less  double that is a bit unrealistic IMO.

Modifié par MrFob, 22 juillet 2013 - 05:09 .

[xNYROx]

MrFob wrote...

xNYROx wrote...

MrFob wrote...

I think the root for most of ME3's most blatant story problems are actually rooted in ME2.

In terms of divergence, I think BW went as far as they could in ME3. You can't just pack two games into one. Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see plot divergence with different missions and everything, not only in ME3 but already in ME2 (I'd have loved to have the choice whether I join Cerberus or the alliance). However, we have to consider the resources of the developers here, both in terms of money and time as well as disk space and system performance. You could have had divergence but you'd also have gotten half as long a game. I don't blame them for going the route they did in that regard.

They are pretty much owned by EA now, the resources are limitless arn't they?

It's EA, they want to make a profit. ME3 was a very decent game in terms of content. Expecting to just more or less  double that is a bit unrealistic IMO.

I don't know, EA is the master of DLC honestly. Almost all the games they release have at least one DLC and most big name games they have release several. You would think they could spare a little extra for one of their top 10 franchises.

[Sanunes]

sambshep wrote...

Yeah I understand that the developers only have so many resources to pack into the game.It's very apparent when you look at the difference in the Citadel between ME1 and ME2; ME1 can have a gigantic Citadel because there is no Omega Station. However, given the results for single player DLC, I don't think it's an impossibility to incorporate something along the lines of a pro-cerberus storyline, it's just a matter of figuring out what parts of the game to remove to make room for it.

For example, if they removed all of the minor side missions (that hardly meant anything to begin with) and didn't have to contend with multiplayer for resources, a Cerberus/Alliance diverging storyline could've easily been possible.

That being said, I enjoyed ME3 for the most part with the exception of the auto-dialogue and forced plot developments (for example, the Kai Leng/Ship fight was one of the laziest ways I've ever seen a plot develop).

The problem I see is all the major storyline quests would have to be created twice one for pro-alliance and one for pro-cerberus. If they were similar I could imagine the "outrage" about how lazy they were just like with the Rachni situation in Mass Effect 3 and that was just a side-quest. 

I don't think your solution of removal of side quests and multiplayer would be enough to cover that much content for most of the game is centered around the main storyline that was Alliance focused. If my memory serves BioWare Montreal worked on the multiplayer so I don't think it would give them that much extra development time for a massively divergent storyline like this would be and I really don't know how much development time went into multiplayer itself for when it launched it felt a lot like single player just with a few changes.

I understand that people on the BSN playthrough games multiple times to see the different content (I am one of them), but I know people that just played the game once for they don't have the time for multiple characters and walked away from the game, something like this would hurt their game experience for they would lose content they might enjoy so this one feature would be implemented for the people that replay the game.

Modifié par Sanunes, 22 juillet 2013 - 06:15 .

[Modius Prime]

Most people that play games don't really care as much as people do like on BSN, and most of the profits came in from people that weren't fans. They just pick it up, beat it, and then forget about it a month later. ME4 is going to be, more or less, like ME3 because their main goal is to make profits, and most of the 'fans' are going to buy it just because it is ME, and then the fans are going to complain all over again; they are never happy. They're going to make a game that is mostly catered to non-fans - a game that can be picked up by anyone, and they can just jump right into the story. BioWare cares about its fans, and they will include a lot of things that fans addressed in the forums, but ultimately it will be a balance, with a greater focus on the non-fans. Sure they might have things like Citadel DLC and stuff, but the game is probably going to be a TPS with RPG elements, just like ME3.

[Blade8971]

blitzkkrieg wrote...

I also would have liked to see Cerberus as a potential ally in the third installment, but as previously said it would have been a tremendous cost of resources to make it happen. That being said, I have the same hopes for the next game; I think it would be interesting to see (assuming the game is set after the reaper war) a new Cerberus, reshaped after all the damage and atrocities it went through.

I'm hoping that would happen 

Modifié par Blade8971, 24 juillet 2013 - 01:54 .

[David7204]

That's a lousy idea.

No.

[iggy4566]

Hope is dead for this series for the most part.

[wright1978]

Personally i understand 2 separate paths being unfeasible but what i find completely unacceptable is the absence of even the ability to express happiness or dissatisfaction at being due to circumstances back with the Alliance. ME2 forced the player to work with Cerberus but the player could express their relationship with Cerberus/TIM via dialogue options during the game. Just being replaying the intro & really think given how the game is set up they might as well have blocked imports from any character not choosing all the pro-alliance dialogues in ME2.

[DarthLaxian]

sambshep wrote...

After getting bored of single player ME3, and mostly disinterested in multiplayer, I decided to do another playthrough of ME2. Several hours into ME2, I suddenly realized what a missed opportunity BioWare let fall through the cracks for a potentially awesome storyline and direction.

To summarize and condense a massive story and universe, we learn in ME1 that we must stop a rogue Spectre agent who is serving an enemy bent on destroying all life in the universe. Your allegiance is to the Alliance and humanity, while making alien friends along the way. Then comes along ME2; you die, are resurrected, and are suddenly in cohorts with Cerberus (whether you deny it or not). Throughout ME2 your friends from the past question not only Cerberus' motives but your own as well, while at the same time TIM and Miranda try to convince you of Cerberus' worthy goals.

Now, where the missed opportunity comes into play starts at the beginning of ME3. Based on your choices in ME2, your loyalties could have been in favor of the Alliance or Cerberus, with loyalty towards the Alliance causing the game to play out pretty much the same it does currently, while conversely if your loyalty sits with Cerberus the story could have taken a COMPLETELY different route. You don't turn yourself in to the Alliance, instead you stay with Cerberus and the Alliance becomes your enemy. Kai Leng could become a squadmate, Kaidan/Ashley and Vega are enemies.

Not only would this divergence have created the opportunity for different missions, but the story would have been drastically different, offering for more re-playability and been a better representation of the Mass Effect series because of your choice in loyalties. With the way ME2 panned out it was already setup perfectly for such a storyline, and fits well with the ending to ME3.

In conclusion, I hope BioWare can incorporate something to this degree in the "ME4" game. Rather than adhere to a rigid story in a game full of choices, open up the story to expand in numerous directions to compliment the foundation of which the ME series sits upon: freedom of choice.

agreed at least to the fact that not every Sheppard would turn
him-/herself in (mine surely wouldn't - he has work to do, sitting idle
in some cell does not accomplish a thing!)

as for rigid story:

it was not only rigid, it was "on rails" - nothing you did really mattered <_<, not from before ME3 and not while playing it (at least not really in the grand scheme of things) and that is a bad place to be for an RPG(the Witcher 2 does this much better, also it should have been a bit more flexible with the faction choice (it has some "on rail"-issues, too - but at least it has a faction choice that really matters!)...or Fallout: New Vegas with the Factions (NCR, Mr. House, The Legion (which i can never choose, i abhor slavery and kill slavers on sight!) and - SURPRISE: YOURSELF (!) - which is something i LOVE!)) and having choices that continue to matter (not like the rachni thing as it currently is, the geth/quarrian war etc.) not like any normal shooter (i like those, too - but they are not what i want to have when i play an action-rpg!) where it is "go from start to finish, survive and enjoy the videos in between...this is NOT MASS EFFECT FOR ME!

greetings LAX
ps: there should have been more factions then just: Cerberus and the Alliance (maybe even the council with the Alliance only playing a minor role?) and even the chance to be just a "Wildcard" (working for yourself, while still fighting to save the galaxy...it's not that unrealistic IMHO, at least for my Sheppard, after everybody tried to screw him over, he has now decided to screw them in return (meaning: when they want something from him, they have got to ask and offer something in return - not order him around!))

EDIT: WROTE MMO INSTEAD OF RPG (have corrected my fail)

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:34 .

[Arcian]

sambshep wrote...

After getting bored of single player ME3, and mostly disinterested in multiplayer, I decided to do another playthrough of ME2. Several hours into ME2, I suddenly realized what a missed opportunity BioWare let fall through the cracks for a potentially awesome storyline and direction.

To summarize and condense a massive story and universe, we learn in ME1 that we must stop a rogue Spectre agent who is serving an enemy bent on destroying all life in the universe. Your allegiance is to the Alliance and humanity, while making alien friends along the way. Then comes along ME2; you die, are resurrected, and are suddenly in cohorts with Cerberus (whether you deny it or not). Throughout ME2 your friends from the past question not only Cerberus' motives but your own as well, while at the same time TIM and Miranda try to convince you of Cerberus' worthy goals.

Now, where the missed opportunity comes into play starts at the beginning of ME3. Based on your choices in ME2, your loyalties could have been in favor of the Alliance or Cerberus, with loyalty towards the Alliance causing the game to play out pretty much the same it does currently, while conversely if your loyalty sits with Cerberus the story could have taken a COMPLETELY different route. You don't turn yourself in to the Alliance, instead you stay with Cerberus and the Alliance becomes your enemy. Kai Leng could become a squadmate, Kaidan/Ashley and Vega are enemies.

Not only would this divergence have created the opportunity for different missions, but the story would have been drastically different, offering for more re-playability and been a better representation of the Mass Effect series because of your choice in loyalties. With the way ME2 panned out it was already setup perfectly for such a storyline, and fits well with the ending to ME3.

In conclusion, I hope BioWare can incorporate something to this degree in the "ME4" game. Rather than adhere to a rigid story in a game full of choices, open up the story to expand in numerous directions to compliment the foundation of which the ME series sits upon: freedom of choice.

Cerberus in ME2 and ME3 was one of the series biggest mistakes. They overtook the entire plot.

[Son of Shepherd]

sambshep wrote...

Yeah I understand that the developers only have so many resources to pack into the game.It's very apparent when you look at the difference in the Citadel between ME1 and ME2; ME1 can have a gigantic Citadel because there is no Omega Station. However, given the results for single player DLC, I don't think it's an impossibility to incorporate something along the lines of a pro-cerberus storyline, it's just a matter of figuring out what parts of the game to remove to make room for it.

For example, if they removed all of the minor side missions (that hardly meant anything to begin with) and didn't have to contend with multiplayer for resources, a Cerberus/Alliance diverging storyline could've easily been possible.

That being said, I enjoyed ME3 for the most part with the exception of the auto-dialogue and forced plot developments (for example, the Kai Leng/Ship fight was one of the laziest ways I've ever seen a plot develop).

It would obviously be really difficult to do what you're suggesting - however the part I definitely agree with is the side missions in 3, as this is one of the biggest faults of ME3 imo, they went for quantity not quality and as a result the game suffered.

The use of multiplayer maps offers little to the overall story, and neither do some other main missions such as the Asari monestary, the Cerberus scientists, even Grissom (which is actually a cracking mission viewed as a standalone mission) as they were all clearly put in for ME2 squadmate cameos. 

All of these things ate up hours of gameplay instead of concentrating on what really mattered. Rather than squadmate cameos it'd worked far better to have them 'recruitable'for the final fight (should you like them enough), having kept in touch with them throughout the game. If they did that they'd have had more time to do seperate missions, even if the difference in gameplay was ónly'around two hours. It really bugged me that you didn't at least get a seperate mission for the Rachni choice, that alone and Bioware wouldn't have got half as much stick about choices imo.