482 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Control doesn't get rid of the Reapers.  People don't find that palatable either.  You know that.

Effectively this is about getting happier consequences, then. They're different in a way that you like better.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 août 2013 - 01:01 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Control doesn't get rid of the Reapers.  People don't find that palatable either.  You know that.

Effectively this is about getting happier consequences, then. They're different in a way that you like better.

If that's how you want to look at it.

If I want to destroy the Reapers, but save the geth, and pay a different "price" that I find more palatable, then eyah, for me it would be a happier outcome.

But if the price I'm willing to pay isn't what others are willing to pay, then it's not really happier for them, now, is it?

An example I used in previous threads:  What if Shepard has the option to save the geth and EDI, but doing so would render the relays permanently non-functional?  I'd probably be willing to pay that price, even if it meant a much longer Dark Age for the galaxy.  Others wouldn't. 

There are other possibilities too:  weakening the Reapers allowing a "conventional win"  A blast that spares synthetics and tech but fries Earth like a Low EMS result.  A weaker blast that doesn't kill all the Reapers, and the remnants escape to possibly terrorize the galaxy in the future.  And these are just "Destroy" options.

So are these truly  happier consequences?  Or simply a different ones, ones some people might be more willing to accept? 

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Control doesn't get rid of the Reapers.  People don't find that palatable either.  You know that.

Effectively this is about getting happier consequences, then. They're different in a way that you like better.

If that's how you want to look at it.

If I want to destroy the Reapers, but save the geth, and pay a different "price" that I find more palatable, then eyah, for me it would be a happier outcome.

But if the price I'm willing to pay isn't what others are willing to pay, then it's not really happier for them, now, is it?

An example I used in previous threads:  What if Shepard has the option to save the geth and EDI, but doing so would render the relays permanently non-functional?  I'd probably be willing to pay that price, even if it meant a much longer Dark Age for the galaxy.  Others wouldn't. 

There are other possibilities too:  weakening the Reapers allowing a "conventional win"  A blast that spares synthetics and tech but fries Earth like a Low EMS result.  A weaker blast that doesn't kill all the Reapers, and the remnants escape to possibly terrorize the galaxy in the future.  And these are just "Destroy" options.

So are these truly  happier consequences?  Or simply a different ones, ones some people might be more willing to accept? 

Personally, I'm much more willing to accept a relay-driven overload beam that can't discriminate between synthetic lifeforms than I am Independence Day v2.0 or the notion of non-destroyed Reapers "retreating".

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
So are these truly  happier consequences?  Or simply a different ones, ones some people might be more willing to accept? 

If people like them better, aren't they happier by definition? What else would "happier" mean? 

Anyway, the conceptual problem is that the design intent was for the player to give up something that he wants in any ending. More endings don't go necessarily go against this intent, but giving the player an ending he finds optimal does.

This is what chemiclord was getting at, I think.

[Shaigunjoe]

David7204 wrote...

Fallout 3 has the best sidequests of any game I can think of.

They were varied, with plenty of colorful characters and a good mix of serious and not-quite-as-serious content. Nearly every single one not only allowed you to choose who to side with, but choose how to execute that side's agenda. The rewards were outstanding - lots of really cool unique perks and weapons.

I don't know about the best I can think of, I thought ME2's side quests were really good as well, but they were far and away better than New Vegas.  New Vegas's quests were short and dull, hardly memorable at all.  The New Vegas DLC was also pretty awful, though I never got around to F3's DLC so I am not sure how it compares.  You are right about the perks/rewards in F3 as well, I can't remember liking anything I got from an NV award perkwise.

Though, I did think the quest where you had to help launch the ghouls on the rocket was really good, and blew away any other sidequest in NV.  I also think NV did a better job of providing multiple options to finish quests, though I think that also made quest lines more sensitive to bugs.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 10 août 2013 - 01:50 .

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

If people like them better, aren't they happier by definition? What else would "happier" mean? 

Anyway, the conceptual problem is that the design intent was for the player to give up something that he wants in any ending. More endings don't go necessarily go against this intent, but giving the player an ending he finds optimal does.

This is what chemiclord was getting at, I think.

That's the long and short of it, yes.  Bioware was committed to the "moral dilemma" ending; that requires that the audience (in this case the player) loses something valuable to them, no matter what they choose.  Ideally, it's meant as a values judgment, what do YOU think is more important?

Now, whether it's a good idea to have that sort of ending concept (especially at the end of a multiple game, multiple year emotional investment) is certainly something up for debate.  Personally, I think it's POSSIBLE to pull off, but you better damn well pull it off FLAWLESSLY, because if you don't, you are going to have your fans latch onto EVERY mistake, no matter how little, and use it as ammunition against you to voice their displeasure.

And when you **** it up as royally as Bioware did... well, hell... I hope you have the National Guard at your disposal, because your Internet presence is going to be a warzone.

I don't think iakus is wrong, at least in theory.  But I think the number of variations needed for "all" fans to at least find one that suits them is unreasonable to expect.  There were FAR too many permutations over the course of this series for EVERYTHING to be accounted for, and anyone who was demanding "more endings", "more options", etc, was setting themselves up for disappointment and putting Bioware in a position that they could only fail.

Modifié par chemiclord, 10 août 2013 - 02:00 .

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...
Also, it's all exacerbated by the fact that I hate most of my squad in ME3. I feel like the only consolation from this would be to survive, get away, and just run off with cooler ME2 characters. The squad experience as a whole left me wanting more. That just makes the ending all the more depressing. Like I was forced to fight with an army I didn't care for, and then die alone. Great.

so you hate the ME1 crew?

[chemiclord]

Well, I do believe the ambiguity was Bioware not wanting to step on any personal headcanon. They didn't want to commit to anything that would invalidate any story that players wanted to tell. It was obviously a mistake, but it was a honest one. It's unfortunate they weren't able to create more visibly diverse ending scenarios, but them's are the limitations of the medium currently.

As for the characters, that's a matter of personal opinion, I suppose. I can't say I preferred any crew over any of the others, but I do think it's not coincidence that the most popular characters are the ones that were around largely from the start and thus had the most development. As much as the BSN seems to wish Liara dead... she's always been at the top of damn near every poll or stat sheet, for example. The rest really gathered a niche following and that was about it.

The characters kinda fall victim to the curse of the series really... too many were introduced and too many permutations involved (especially after that really ill-advised Suicide Mission of ME2) to give any of the newer characters due justice.

[LiL Reapur]

StreetMagic wrote...

Tali's cool actually, but I just don't get much use out of her like in ME1 (when the game was flooded with Geth)

Mass Effect 1: Where overload would carry you through the ENTIRE game. Man those were good times.....

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
Also, it's all exacerbated by the fact that I hate most of my squad in ME3. I feel like the only consolation from this would be to survive, get away, and just run off with cooler ME2 characters. The squad experience as a whole left me wanting more. That just makes the ending all the more depressing. Like I was forced to fight with an army I didn't care for, and then die alone. Great.

so you hate the ME1 crew?

I never liked Liara, but Garrus' development annoyed me later (forced "bro"). It just worse in ME3. At least he didn't speak as much in ME2. He dies in the suicide mission from now on.

 Tali's cool actually, but I just don't get much use out of her like in ME1 (when the game was flooded with Geth). Don't care for the drone mechanic especially (wasn't in ME1, of course).

so basically, you don't like any squadmate in 1 or 3 except for Tali?

[chidingewe8036]

well whatever the case its good to see that a lot of you guys are still around these parts, makes ME3 less depressing, I don't feel so alone with this stuff.

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 so basically, you don't like any squadmate in 1 or 3 except for Tali?

I like Wrex too, but he isn't there (except for Citadel). I like Grunt more though.. That's Oghren and Spike Spiegel, man. You can't beat that.

Kaidan is more useful than anyone (power wise), but he's boring as hell. Ashley is bugged (marksman bug). She has crappy traits, but I'm a little attracted to her flaws. The drama is kind of fun, for some reason. If she wasn't bugged, I'd be happier about it.

It seems like you're trying to lead me to a bigger point though, so just ask away.

edit: as for ME3 specific people, James and Javik are awesome. No problems there. How much can I take the same squad though? Not much.

I'm not leading you to any specific point. You said you hated "most" of the ME3 squad. Since the ME3 squad is essentially the entire ME1 crew plus 3, minus Wrex, I was simply looking for clarification. Liara, Garrus, EDI.....that's 3 people you don't like in ME3. How is that most of the crew? (Unless you want to throw Ash in there as well. In which case, you're saying you don't care for her character because one of her powers is bugged?)


Personally, I thought most of the ME2 squad would've been more at home in a comic book than a space opera.

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 so basically, you don't like any squadmate in 1 or 3 except for Tali?

I like Wrex too, but he isn't there (except for Citadel). I like Grunt more though.. That's Oghren and Spike Spiegel, man. You can't beat that.

Kaidan is more useful than anyone (power wise), but he's boring as hell. Ashley is bugged (marksman bug). She has crappy traits, but I'm a little attracted to her flaws. The drama is kind of fun, for some reason. If she wasn't bugged, I'd be happier about it.

It seems like you're trying to lead me to a bigger point though, so just ask away.

edit: as for ME3 specific people, James and Javik are awesome. No problems there. How much can I take the same squad though? Not much.

I'm not leading you to any specific point. You said you hated "most" of the ME3 squad. Since the ME3 squad is essentially the entire ME1 crew plus 3, minus Wrex, I was simply looking for clarification. Liara, Garrus, EDI.....that's 3 people you don't like in ME3. How is that most of the crew? (Unless you want to throw Ash in there as well. In which case, you're saying you don't care for her character because one of her powers is bugged?)


Personally, I thought most of the ME2 squad would've been more at home in a comic book than a space opera.

Fair enough. Maybe I like comic books more then. The only space opera I know is Dune and Star Wars. I don't know what Mass Effect has to do with space opera in relation to those. They seem more like "futuristic fantasy".

In any case, I'd be a lot happier even with just one of those squadmates (Jack). Jack and Grunt both would be great.

Ashley's bug is a killer. But also, I only like her for a specific type of character that would romance her. She's cool, but she's niche. If that makes sense. I tried playing once without her romanced and never in combat...You know, just to have around the ship. It sucked. It was like a "mentor" thing going like I get with Vega, except she's too bugged to actually play with.

its one power that's bugged. How does that make her "too bugged to play with"? Not to mention its not even an offensive power. It's more of an enhancement that does nothing but increase damage and fire rate....how is not having that "a killer"? She rarely gets downed and she still shoots enemies.


Many sci fi novels as well as tv shows and movies are considered "space operas". The term isn't solely designated to Dune and Star Wars.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
So are these truly  happier consequences?  Or simply a different ones, ones some people might be more willing to accept? 

If people like them better, aren't they happier by definition? What else would "happier" mean?

By that definition, any dislike of the endings at all boils down to their not being happy enough.

Anyway, the conceptual problem is that the design intent was for the player to give up something that he wants in any ending. More endings don't go necessarily go against this intent, but giving the player an ending he finds optimal does.

This makes it sound like Bioware deliberately sabotaged the endings, that they wanted them to be terrible and if there was an ending the players enjoyed, they somehow failed.

One can give up something and still get a "good" ending.  It's in deciding that what's being given up was worth the price.  For all too many people, the endings did not strike that balance.

[Clips7]

I too found the characters lacking in ME3...well let me saw that i felt Ash, and James and Liara to a certain extent boring....I found myself taking EDI and Garrus alot on my missions. ME2 had the best variety of characters the franchise has seen and even tho ME3 did a pretty good backstory of keeping track of characters that survived the suicide mission (depending on who survived in your game) i would have still liked to have some of those characters as squadmates.

Miranda is light years better than Ash and more interesting as a character,..Thane, Samarah,Jack... all really just intriguing characters...with interesting dialogue branches,...James, Ash and sometimes Liara soap opery conversations would put me to sleep.

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

its one power that's bugged. How does that make her "too bugged to play with"? Not to mention its not even an offensive power. It's more of an enhancement that does nothing but increase damage and fire rate....how is not having that "a killer"? She rarely gets downed and she still shoots enemies.


Many sci fi novels as well as tv shows and movies are considered "space operas". The term isn't solely designated to Dune and Star Wars.

Then tell me. That was an acknowledgement of my own limited experience with it, and an invitation to learn about space opera from you. Not for you to simply tell me I was wrong. I already admitted ignorance. No use in repeating it.

Have you played with marksman? Do you even know what I'm talking about? She stalls at unpredictable times and gets locked in place.




On another note, don't hold it against me for not liking a bug. I understand you have a compulsion to go ME3 Defense Force in every thread you enter, but I'm not your opponent for saying there is a bug and I don't like playing with it.

I never said you were wrong about anything. Nor did I hold it against you for "not liking a bug". Nor did I "defend" ME3 in any way. I simply questioned how you figured that Ashley was "too bugged to play with", when its a single power that causes the glitch.....one that isn't even necessary to use. Sure, the bug is annoying, but its completely avoidable.

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Well, you came off like you're putting the burden on me for not playing with a bug. You come off smug and dismissive.

its not my fault that you interpreted it that way. Not sure how you consider it "dismissive", when I was literally inquiring what you meant. Not to mention you were the one labelling me with a "compulsion" to be "ME3 defense force"....


I didn't put the burden on you for not playing with a bug. I simply implied that it doesnt render her character "unusable" by any stretch.