211 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

I have a conceptual issue with the EMS (in the sense that decisions and their outcomes are abstracted to numbers) but what turned the system from a frustration into something I totally couldn't stand was that reactivity was mostly scrapped. London could've been something more akin to the Battle of Denerim in Origins (ordering armies around) or with as much complexity as ME2's Suicide Mission, but what the game actually had was a dull, linear level and then a final choice governed by a War Assets system that made *no sense*. Why does a higher EMS affect the ending choice? Why is a cruiser worth 8.7 Samaras? The whole thing was an abstraction to paper over a lack of actual reactivity, and seeing choices reflected in the world. 

I remember in the Game Informer article Mike Laidlaw mentioned that critpath missions in Inquisition would only be unlocked when the player had done a sufficient amount of "other things" in the world, whether that be interacting with companions, exploration or sidequests. As in, building the Inquisition's power was necessary to proceed with the story.

Just... don't give this mechanic numbers. It's artificial and incredibly stupid. Have it work behind the scenes, and notify us when a new main-arc mission is ready to be done. Having some sort of "progress bar" or numerical value for the Inquisition's power is immensely annoying - the similar system basically broke ME3's tone and momentum for me.

I don't want to have to find ten ancient artifacts worth 5 Inquisition power points each in order to advance to the next quest, or recruit a new elf faction in Orlais worth 100 power. 

[ElitePinecone]

Sanunes wrote...

What I am gathering from the BioWare boards is that Mass Effect 2 was awesome because it has a hidden system to determine your squad's outcome during the suicide mission, but Mass Effect 3's visible system that does the same thing is bad.

You could even consider Dragon Age: Origins having something similar with how the different ending slides are calculated with choices you make during the game, or course each choice is independent instead of a sum event.

This is a good way to put it.

Using numbers "behind the scenes" in choices is fine as long as they're not overtly visible - and as long as the outcomes those numbers influence actually make sense.

(For example, for ME2's squad survival I don't mind that each companion has an invisible numerical strength value that affects their chances of surviving. What I really find aggravating is that higher EMS scores *inexplicably* give ME3's glowy explosions new colour options and actually affects their level of destructiveness in certain endings.)

[n7stormrunner]

ElitePinecone wrote...

. Why does a higher EMS affect the ending choice?

oh something that has a answer, I assume because you had a bigger fleet which means the crucible gets past the reapers with less damage, and that the teams working on it did a better job building it... in fact I could have sworn that it was explained somewhere in game, but I could have just ran though the logic on my own and didn't realize it

[JamieCOTC]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

That's the bulk of it, yes, but the EMS combined w/ MP lead to a lot of tedious and ultimately pointless tasks in ME3's SP. Scanning planets actually became worse and I would not care for a DA version.  Exploring sounds fun, but not for random and meaningless points. I want quests in those caves and hills and valleys.

[ElitePinecone]

n7stormrunner wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

. Why does a higher EMS affect the ending choice?

oh something that has a answer, I assume because you had a bigger fleet which means the crucible gets past the reapers with less damage, and that the teams working on it did a better job building it... in fact I could have sworn that it was explained somewhere in game, but I could have just ran though the logic on my own and didn't realize it

That sounds like fairly dubious logic, really.

I mean, you could ignore every Crucible-related War Asset (and actively *avoid* finding fleets) and just promote dozens or hundreds of multiplayer characters, and still get access to the highest-EMS choice. Compared to ME2's Suicide Mission, where the choices had actual consequences that directly related to them (not upgrading a shield led to casualties), ME3 basically asks us to trust that a higher number magically translates into a better Crucible. 

I just really don't like that an arbitrary number was the sum of our choices over three games, and determined the ending choices that Shepard was offered. 

[Psykohamster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

I'm a little confused by your response.  It makes it seem like you think the EMS system had any reactivity at all.  You know how many choices you will have when you get to the ghostboy and how good or bad those choices will be simply by looking at a number.  EMS effectively eliminated the consequences of your decisions as long as you had access to multiplayer.  The concept of the EMS system precluded the possibility of reactivity.  Before the slide shows, it made endings where the quatrains died no different from ones where they lived.  If Inqusition assigns a number to the Grey Warden army that pledges itself to your cause, at least let the player decide how to use it.

If I came across as rude, I'm sorry.  It's just that to me the EMS system and lack of reactivity are synonymous.  Adding in reactivity would necessitate a different system.

Modifié par Psykohamster, 10 août 2013 - 06:23 .

[n7stormrunner]

ElitePinecone wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

. Why does a higher EMS affect the ending choice?

oh something that has a answer, I assume because you had a bigger fleet which means the crucible gets past the reapers with less damage, and that the teams working on it did a better job building it... in fact I could have sworn that it was explained somewhere in game, but I could have just ran though the logic on my own and didn't realize it

That sounds like fairly dubious logic, really.

I mean, you could ignore every Crucible-related War Asset (and actively *avoid* finding fleets) and just promote dozens or hundreds of multiplayer characters, and still get access to the highest-EMS choice. Compared to ME2's Suicide Mission, where the choices had actual consequences that directly related to them (not upgrading a shield led to casualties), ME3 basically asks us to trust that a higher number magically translates into a better Crucible. 

I just really don't like that an arbitrary number was the sum of our choices over three games, and determined the ending choices that Shepard was offered. 

I assume that was gameplay and story segregation. then again why would someone ignore war assts and fleets in favor of mutiplayer characters? why would they ignore them in the first place? also why would you  doubt  it in the first place out the issures with mutiplayer I don't see a reason to.  

but I've said it before I don't think mass effect 3 was ever going to go well for bioware.

why is the number arbitrary? or at least any more so the anything else they could've done? why deos this choice work bettter then that one? it's all "arbitrary"

[Mr.House]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

My problem with the ems Allan was it reduced all choices to nothing. Every big choice in all three games was reduced to a number, that's it. There was choices that should have played a bigger impact(and we where even told they would) and they didn't. Not to mention we didn't even see our war assets in action. The only good thing about war assets and ems was that Sylivia(sp) did a great job with all the descriptions, but that's it.

Modifié par Mr.House, 10 août 2013 - 06:35 .

[n7stormrunner]

Mr.House wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

My problem with the ems Allan was it reduced all choices to nothing. Every big choice in all three games was reduced to a number, that's it. There was choices that should have played a bigger impact(and we where even told they would) and they didn't. Not to mention we didn't even see our war assets in action. The only good thing about war assets and ems was that Sylivia(sp) did a great job with all the descriptions, but that's it.

I'm going to regret this, but how else was it going to work?

[ElitePinecone]

n7stormrunner wrote...

why is the number arbitrary? or at least any more so the anything else they could've done? why deos this choice work bettter then that one? it's all "arbitrary"

Well, Samara was worth 25 points. The Batarian fleet has a base strength of 100 points. 

Does that mean Samara is literally worth a quarter of a space fleet? In what context? What do those points mean? Combat strength? Ability to do damage? Usefulness to the war effort? Who decides what points are worth? How do we know what they're worth before a battle starts? 

I can totally accept arbitrariness and abstractions in many parts of the game (like stats and attributes) because it serves a gameplay purpose, but rendering *choices* as abstract numbers was annoying. 

Then there's the contrast to ME2, or DA Origins, where choices were reflected with actual consequences - or if they were rendered as numbers, it was behind the scenes and not visible to the player. 

[LadyRaena13]

It's not that I didn't like the EMS, I didn't like the fact that Multiplayer affected the ending result. I don't play multiplayer cause well cause I suck at it not going to lie here. I really suck at it! So even though I got ALL available points IN GAME they still said "Less than 50%" of hammer squad made it ground side. WHAT really??? So ok do the point system but please please please don't tie it in as a Multiplayer feature PLEASE

[n7stormrunner]

ElitePinecone wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

why is the number arbitrary? or at least any more so the anything else they could've done? why deos this choice work bettter then that one? it's all "arbitrary"

Well, Samara was worth 25 points. The Batarian fleet has a base strength of 100 points. 

Does that mean Samara is literally worth a quarter of a space fleet? In what context? What do those points mean? Combat strength? Ability to do damage? Usefulness to the war effort? Who decides what points are worth? How do we know what they're worth before a battle starts? 

I can totally accept arbitrariness and abstractions in many parts of the game (like stats and attributes) because it serves a gameplay purpose, but rendering *choices* as abstract numbers was annoying. 

Then there's the contrast to ME2, or DA Origins, where choices were reflected with actual consequences - or if they were rendered as numbers, it was behind the scenes and not visible to the player. 

that I think was the real problem if the player had no idea that number exist their wouldn't  as big of a problem with it. what consequsequeces me 2 if you rushed and didn't prepare people die? me 3 if you rushed and didn't prepare people die, possible everyone dies. where is the difference?

DA: O what consequences the only choice that as of yet has any real affect is who if anyone die to slay the archdemon. which is decided by two choices at the end of the game. I'm not counting the epilogue because they may or may not happen... or anything that may happen in DA: I because we don't know yet 

[Dubozz]

I actually find EMS concept rather good. Exept for ME3 example of course, numbers were really stupid decision. ME2 Suicide mission? Yes, please.

Modifié par Dubozz, 10 août 2013 - 07:42 .

[NRieh]

I'm more or less fine with the idea of EMS itself, if not for several points.
1.The most obvious one. Lack of proper amount of EMS in game on release, which forced people to edit saves, play MP or buy DLCs. Was never acknowledged until EC, which dropped the numbers. But even those new numbers are barely achieved on a ''non-perfect' PT with default 50% rate and no DLCs. By 'non-perfect' I mean, anything that is not 'released,saved,cured,made peace'. For example, picking side on Rannoch, or making some other decisions during the 1-2-3 game.

2. Significant EMS punishments for not playing previous content and not buying previous (and current) DLCs. E.g. no 'good' outcome for 'Hanar diplomat' if you did not buy Kasumi for ME2, Zaeed affects volus mission, but he was (at least) a part of free DLC.

3. Many critical plot EMS-related moments were the 'worst case scenario' by default on a fresh run, which means they were both the most depressing and the cheapest ones. I have no idea how people could even play that without 1-2-3 import.

They mentioned how Hawke had to stash 50 gold, and they said it was bad, because character had to chose between gear and the objective. I personally never had an issue with that - it seems logical that you spend less if you gather money for something. Drop and rewards were enough to play on normal anyway. For those, who could not get enough gold there was a dwarven quest, game progressed regardless how much have player spent.

I think it was done well, it looked natural, much more natural than 'pick up 10 dirty socks and save 5 babies from an ogre to get your reputation to X and progress further'.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's just that to me the EMS system and lack of reactivity are synonymous.

I do not agree with this.

There's nothing saying that an power rating can be achieved, but the effects of such power rating lead to a degree of divergence based on what choices you made to affect that power rating.

Need "200" power rating for your vassals to be convinced you have prepared enough for battle, but you could have the consequences of the 200 points still be affected by which actual preparations you made.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's just that to me the EMS system and lack of reactivity are synonymous.

I do not agree with this.

There's nothing saying that an power rating can be achieved, but the effects of such power rating lead to a degree of divergence based on what choices you made to affect that power rating.

Need "200" power rating for your vassals to be convinced you have prepared enough for battle, but you could have the consequences of the 200 points still be affected by which actual preparations you made.

It becomes a number game. If those 200 points were given for the achieved rachni support then I rather see the rachni fighting along side the other allies, like the queen promised, than be assured that these 200 points get me in the numeric clear.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 10 août 2013 - 08:33 .

[Allan Schumacher]

In the hypothetical I created, there's nothing stopping the rachni from attacking. In fact, I worded it in a way that the assessment of EMS wasn't even determined by the player, but by his vassals.

In theory, you could have a situation where your vassals only go to war if they believe you have enough power (by which they effectively communicate how much they *think* you have with a number). It actually wouldn't prevent a low number value from actually being the most significant contributor once the battle actually happens.

[nightcobra]

to me though, the EMS system felt like it was a way for the game to tell me how what i did affected the war instead of showing it, i understand that showing all the different outcomes would hog a lot of development resources but still...when in a setting where your actions matter, showing rather than telling becomes that much important.

[RogueWriter3201]

I think the general idea of dislike here is that, essentially, the EMS just reduced the success of gaining allies and forging alliances to numbers. Gone was the visual impact of actually seeing these resources and allies in play.

Someone pointed out the Rachni Queen example; we save her, twice, and in return she promises to aid us against the Reapers. Except we never actually see it. When the final battle came there was almost no indication of the allies we had gained through long struggles and sacrifices save for a few glimpses of ships in the big fleet arrival sequence.

Even that was lackluster. There's also the added caveat that the way in which Mr. Hudson and Mr. Walters decided to conclude the game made the EMS and previous choices even more superfluous.

To summarize, don't reduce my narrative achievements to numbers on a scoreboard, and don't put in a system that trivializes my choices and makes them, essentially, pointless or merely numerical.

[Mr.House]

n7stormrunner wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

My problem with the ems Allan was it reduced all choices to nothing. Every big choice in all three games was reduced to a number, that's it. There was choices that should have played a bigger impact(and we where even told they would) and they didn't. Not to mention we didn't even see our war assets in action. The only good thing about war assets and ems was that Sylivia(sp) did a great job with all the descriptions, but that's it.

I'm going to regret this, but how else was it going to work?

SHow the big choices having a impact? You know, something the ME team said would happen but did't. Is expecting the ME2 characters to fight on London via a cutscene or in the backfround, or the rachni showing up ect that much to ask for?

Modifié par Mr.House, 10 août 2013 - 09:37 .

[Milady]

I hated the EMS and galatic readiness system. I want something like Da:O where choices and influence mattered. Not numbers or the amount of forced time you had to put in multiplayer to get a higher galactic readiness. That was such a huge bummer and really affected my will to replay ME3

[Fast Jimmy]

One problem with the EMS system is that it seemed to never pay off to be anything but full paragon, from a strictly numbers point of view. When the Renegade option is pitched as the "do what it takes to get the job done" type of mentality, then it should, by strict probability alone, pay off to make the hard choice for the greater good every once in while.

That aside, it seems we are going to have a reputation system of some point where the decisions of whether we collect the magic artifact or save the attacked village will each have their own point values, so something like EMS will appear, it seems. However, given that this is for reputation and not for building up actual military forces directly (as far as we know), it is uncertain how much reactivity could be expected later in the game.

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's just that to me the EMS system and lack of reactivity are synonymous.

I do not agree with this.

There's nothing saying that an power rating can be achieved, but the effects of such power rating lead to a degree of divergence based on what choices you made to affect that power rating.

Need "200" power rating for your vassals to be convinced you have prepared enough for battle, but you could have the consequences of the 200 points still be affected by which actual preparations you made.

I agree that they're not synonymous, but even the existence of a power meter feels weird and inorganic. Why not just have the system running in the background then notify the player when the vassals hit the invisible threshold?

I guess I'd react negatively if, a few hours into Inquisition, we're left alone to roam the world (yay!) but with an objective to raise our "Inquisition power level" to 200. Find a Tevinter artifact? That's 10 Inquisition power points! Complete an objective in multiplayer? 50 points!

That feels artificial and gamey.

[Kidd]

ME3 actually proves that EMS can work with choice and consequence, only it doesn't do so with the EMS mechanic itself.

In Priority: Rannoch, the best outcome (consequence) can only be received if you've done enough things right during the trilogy (choice, multiples of it). Many choices add up to a hidden "Rannoch-EMS" value which is never shown to the player. It is only if that number is high enough that you can pick the optimal outcome. One of these factors is whether or not you have Legion survive ME2 or not. And no matter if your "Rannoch-EMS" is high enough or not, your state of Legion's presence will indeed be shown in the game.

That what happens if Legion did not survive on the Normandy in ME2 is not given a very interesting alternative in ME3 is a separate issue not directly related to the acknowledgement of different world states and an "EMS"-like value at the same time. Please don't bring that up =)

Fast Jimmy wrote...

One problem with the EMS system is that it seemed to never pay off to be anything but full paragon, from a strictly numbers point of view. When the Renegade option is pitched as the "do what it takes to get the job done" type of mentality, then it should, by strict probability alone, pay off to make the hard choice for the greater good every once in while.

The Tuchanka plotline will serve you best as a full renegade who left Wrex on Virmire, EMS-wise. I also think keeping the base in ME2 is better than not doing so. Other than that, yeah, there is little benefit to choosing the larger galaxy over the people in front of you - which seems very backwards indeed.

ElitePinecone wrote...

I agree that they're not synonymous, but even the existence of a power meter feels weird and inorganic. Why not just have the system running in the background then notify the player when the vassals hit the invisible threshold?

This could definitely work. The Redcliffe plot in DAO works similar to this. You can ask the guard guy (sorry, forgot his name - the guy with Zaeed's voice actor) how he feels about tonight's chances. He will answer and give you a summary of your "Redcliffe EMS" value, only with words and less preciseness. That felt really good, to me. You could have somebody in your castle in DAI perhaps who would act as advisor on "inquisition points" and whether you are ready for the end game, if DAI indeed has an EMS-like meter.

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