173 réponses à ce sujet

[Philosophaster]

@Han Shot First

I'd like to apologize if my post came across as hostile in any way. Tone could be an issue with the way I phrased certain things. That was not my intent; I was only curious. 

Your response is a good example of what I am talking about; when you say you want a sequel, you want a sequel to your choices. You did well in pointing out the issues with Synthesis and Control. I am uncertain how you could satisfactorily depict a Synthesis universe as the great paradigm shift that it should be. How am I to role-play a character in a world where communications and freedom of information are so far advanced? The very way organics would think would be alien to us. I just don't think you could do it justice. Synthesis is something that can be shown (see the relevant EC slides), but I don't think it could be adequately experienced in an RPG form. I think what would have to be retconned in order  to play a post-Synthesis character would disappoint Synthesis fans as the vision would probably end up being all too familiar and limited. The Control option has the Reapers around as protectors; not much room for an individual to go adventuring. Anything worth serious consideration is now essentially in the hands of the Shepalyst (be it acting as a Paragon or Renegade).

And in spite of all that, I wouldn't want the players who chose those endings to have their Shepard's choices invalidated. I appreciate your candor as far as your reasons for wanting a Destruction canon for a sequel. And I am not saying you are wrong to want it; it is not my place to do so. In the interest of full disclosure, I chose Destruction as well, and even then I would prefer a sidequel or prequel to avoid invalidating the choices made by others.

Thanks for your response and your time.

Modifié par inconsiderate rick, 18 août 2013 - 12:13 .

[AlanC9]

I don't see picking a canon set of choices for the sequel as invalidation. Plenty of other RPGs have made particular choices canon for the sequel. Fallout canonized stuff all over the place. BG2 even made jokes about how people who died in BG1 didn't stay dead in the sequel.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 août 2013 - 10:46 .

[Philosophaster]

AlanC9 wrote...

inconsiderate rick wrote...

I think if you want a clearer image of what fans want, you need to specify just what form that sequel will take. You made a poll that offered multiple options not that long ago (May 2013) and 68% voted in favor of sequel as opposed to reboot, AU, sidequel, prequel, and spin-off. A poll by another user three days after yours was originally posted asked which ending would provide the best foundation for a sequel. The results had Destroy with 58% followed by IT/Nightmare with 26%. Control and Synthesis managed 8% apiece.

http://social.biowar...91/polls/45678/

When you vote for a sequel, are you envisioning IT? Well, when you vote for a sequel option without distinctions being made, you are effectively in the same camp. "Sequel" seems to mean something different to each person. I would also question the validity of the polls on the BSN due to the sample size.

Assuming the polls are accurate, looks like there's a pretty good plurality for canonized Destroy. Which I've been advocating since before the EC, even though my favorite ending is Paragon Control.

And that is the assumption, isn't it? Should I really put that much faith in a poll that managed 144 votes? The people on the BSN are not necessarily indicative of the whole, at least as far as certain choices go. For example, the percentage of players who choose to play FemShep changes drastically when using the BSN as a sample versus the data BioWare collected from all players available. And besides, Alan, certainly you would hope that that particular poll isn't accurate; you don't really want to believe that approximately a quarter of the player base as of today wants IT/Nightmare to be real, do you?

[Xilizhra]

The alternatives to a sequel are either going alternate universe or rolling with a prequel. I find neither option particularly appealing. The problem with an alternate universe is that no choice made in ME3 matters, as the next game simply pretends the Shepard trilogy never existed at all. In that case, why not start a new Sci FI IP? A prequel isn't much better, as it then constrains the player in playing through events that already have known canon outcome and in a smaller galaxy with less factions.

That's either inaccurate or accurate in a completely meaningless way. Of course the Shepard trilogy never happened; Shepard isn't real. But just because there's a universe reboot doesn't mean that Shepard's story never happened in the series in which it was depicted; the Dark Knight trilogy doesn't invalidate the Tim Burton Batman series.

Assuming the polls are accurate, looks like there's a pretty good plurality for canonized Destroy. Which I've been advocating since before the EC, even though my favorite ending is Paragon Control.

Canonized Destroy can go to ****ing hell. No damned playthrough utilizing genocide will be any playthrough of mine.

[Sir DeLoria]

Xilizhra wrote...

Canonized Destroy can go to ****ing hell. No damned playthrough utilizing genocide will be any playthrough of mine.

"waah, waah poor robots, poor Reapers". Shutting of a bunch of computers isn't genocide.

[Xilizhra]

Necanor wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Canonized Destroy can go to ****ing hell. No damned playthrough utilizing genocide will be any playthrough of mine.

"waah, waah poor robots, poor Reapers". Shutting of a bunch of computers isn't genocide.

You're free to be wrong, but don't inflict it upon my story.

[Philosophaster]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't see picking a canon set of choices for the sequel as invalidation. Plenty of other RPGs have made particular choices canon for the sequel. Fallout canonized stuff all over the place. BG2 even made jokes about how people who died in BG1 didn't stay dead in the sequel.

Yes, other RPGs have done that, so far as to poke fun at themselves for having done so as you point out. I would argue that that is invalidation in the sense that it is telling you what your character did  simply did not happen. Synthesis is an "it happened or it didn't" endgame option. If you play a sequel in which the effects of Synthesis are not present, even though your Shepard chose it, how is that not an instance of nullifying the choice? Your examples are what I believe to be retcons employed for the purpose of building a successive narrative. Retcons that require the nullification of player choice. As far as I know, the opportunity to even acknowledge choice in those series between games was limited if not nonexistent, anyway. No import system was available for the Fallout series. If picking a canon set of choices that may completely conflict with your own isn't invalidation, how is it that your choices have been validated?

Modifié par inconsiderate rick, 17 août 2013 - 11:11 .

[mmarksp]

Best of all 3 games! The whole scale was so great! And I never thought that Shepard or returning characters were "out of character". Game was just so perfect, though the ending was bad. Just the conclusions and the consequences of one's choice. The rest (soundtrack, cinematics) were perfectly executed!

[AlanC9]

inconsiderate rick wrote...
Yes, other RPGs have done that, so far as to poke fun at themselves for having done so as you point out. I would argue that that is invalidation in the sense that it is telling you what your character did simply did not happen.

Right, because some other character was faced with that decision and did something different. 

Synthesis is an "it happened or it didn't" endgame option. If you play a sequel in which the effects of Synthesis are not present, even though your Shepard chose it, how is that not an instance of nullifying the choice?

My Shepards all did what they did. Playing another Shepard doesn't invalidate the previous Shepard's choices. Why would a sequel?

 As far as I know, the opportunity to even acknowledge choice in those series between games was limited if not nonexistent, anyway. No import system was available for the Fallout series. If picking a canon set of choices that may completely conflict with your own isn't invalidation, how is it that your choices have been validated?

I don't think ME4 will import anything either, unless Bio are idiots.

Maybe I just don't know whay you mean by "validation."

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 août 2013 - 07:44 .

[Dr. Megaverse]

If you asked me a month ago what percentage of ME3 I disliked it would have been about the first 30%, and the last 10%. I've been doing a playthrough of ME2 again though and I've really come to dislike the majority of ME3. It just didn't have the kind of pull with me that ME2 has, for so many reasons, not just the terrible ending or auto-dialog.  The parts that do resoante seem contrived, and often slapdash. The elements specifically added to tug at those heart string, be itpast romances or squadmates, seem shallow and half hearted, or at best again, contrived. I get a feeling of "meh" from it. 

With the sole exception of anything Grunt did/said lol. 

Modifié par Dr. Megaverse, 18 août 2013 - 01:48 .

[Philosophaster]

AlanC9 wrote...

inconsiderate rick wrote...
Yes, other RPGs have done that, so far as to poke fun at themselves for having done so as you point out. I would argue that that is invalidation in the sense that it is telling you what your character did simply did not happen.

Right, because some other character was faced with that. decision and did something different. 

Synthesis is an "it happened or it didn't" endgame option. If you play a sequel in which the effects of Synthesis are not present, even though your Shepard chose it, how is that not an instance of nullifying the choice?

My Shepards all did what they did. Playing another Shepard doesn't invalidate the previous Shepard's choices. Why would a sequel?

 As far as I know, the opportunity to even acknowledge choice in those series between games was limited if not nonexistent, anyway. No import system was available for the Fallout series. If picking a canon set of choices that may completely conflict with your own isn't invalidation, how is it that your choices have been validated?

I don't think ME4 will import anything either, unless Bio are idiots.

Maybe I just don't know whay you mean by "validation."

Don't get me wrong; I don't believe there will be imports either. I was making a point that games that chose not to carry over choices might have done so were the option available at the time. Of course, that is pure conjecture on my part. I know DAI is working on something for next gen choice continuity, but I doubt the same system would be in place for the next Mass Effect. On that we are agreed.

When I say "validation," I mean that the choices that are made are recognized as acceptable and verified as having happened. Perhaps that is poor word choice on my part. Maybe you should define what you mean by "invalidation" in this statement: "I don't see picking a canon set of choices for the sequel as invalidation." If we can reconcile definitions that should clear up any confusion.

Take for example Xilizhra's post above and note how her Shepard vehemently opposed the Destruction choice. Should she play the next Mass Effect with Destruction as canon; does that suddenly mean her Shepard now supports killing the Geth and Reapers? Or is it another Shepard a la alternate universe? You said  your favorite ending was Paragon Control, correct? Let's say your Shepard makes that decision and then you play the next Mass Effect only to find that Synthesis has been enacted by Shepard using the Crucible function. What happened? It would appear that you were either mistaken in what your Shepard would do or your Shepard only existed in an alternate universe. I'm probably making this into a false dichotomy for which I apologize.

You make a good point concerning playthroughs for multiple Shepards. The difference, in my mind anyway, is that a sequel with a Destruction canon will simply not allow for certain Shepards to have ever existed, like Xilizhra's Control Shepard or Ieldra2's Synthesis Shepard. Each ME3 playthrough recognizes the choices your Shepards make within the framework the game provides. All Shepards, provided they aren't steeped in headcanon, are recognized as they make their way through ME3. That would not appear to be the case with a canonized sequel.

If I was unclear at any point or misinterpreted any of your points, don't hesitate to make it known. I'm not sure I'm conveying my stance correctly as it seems I'm repeating myself. Maybe I'm simply presenting a flawed argument. Certainly won't be the first time I've been guilty of that.

Modifié par inconsiderate rick, 18 août 2013 - 02:25 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Canonized Destroy can go to ****ing hell. No damned playthrough utilizing genocide will be any playthrough of mine.

So... you didn't play the Mass Effect trilogy, then? Good to know. You can't avoid it with the Geth, and there's more than a little doubt about the nature of Reaper individuality post-Control. This isn't mentioning certain DLC either, of course.

[Dean_the_Young]

inconsiderate rick wrote...

When I say "validation," I mean that the choices that are made are recognized as acceptable and verified as having happened. Perhaps that is poor word choice on my part. Maybe you should define what you mean by "invalidation" in this statement: "I don't see picking a canon set of choices for the sequel as invalidation." If we can reconcile definitions that should clear up any confusion.

Validation is a strange choice of words, then, since that's pretty far from what most contemporary uses of the word means. Especially in the constructs of an RPG, in which mutual incompatibility inherently the limits the ability of a sequel to reflect that something happened: there's a reason why most choices in the games never get brought up again.

Moreover, the existence of a sequel in which B is assumed instead of A doesn't mean that A couldn't have happened: it's a diveregence of route, not a nullification of the alternative.

It can be framed as simply as 'Not all uses of the Crucible were Destroy, but for those that were-', a set-up that leaves everyone who chose Control free to imagine alternative paths for their utopian Shepherd-influenced galaxy. The Control sequel is someone else's game, just as a Male Shep is someone else's Shepherd to someone who plays Fem Shep.

Take for example Xilizhra's post above and note how her Shepard vehemently opposed the Destruction choice. Should she play the next Mass Effect with Destruction as canon; does that suddenly mean her Shepard now supports killing the Geth and Reapers? Or is it another Shepard a la alternate universe? You said  your favorite ending was Paragon Control, correct? Let's say your Shepard makes that decision and then you play the next Mass Effect only to find that Synthesis has been enacted by Shepard using the Crucible function. What happened? It would appear that you were either mistaken in what your Shepard would do or your Shepard only existed in an alternate universe. I'm probably making this into a false dichotomy for which I apologize.

Since Bioware already freely plays with ambiguous, mutually exclusive events as 'canon', the term is misleading. There doesn't have to be, and actually isn't, a single 'canon' that Xil would have to submit to, anymore than anyone else. Xil's canonical Shepherd isn't mine, and vice versa.

A Destroy-based sequel doesn't mean that Control wasn't a valid (and equally acceptable/'real') outcome of ME3: it just means that the Destroy-based sequel isn't a sequel of her Control-ending of ME3. If she wants to make a Destroy-import for continuity reasons... sure. The sequel might be a sequel to that. But if she doesn't want it to be a sequel to her ending, she doesn't have to view it as one.

You make a good point concerning playthroughs for multiple Shepards. The difference, in my mind anyway, is that a sequel with a Destruction canon will simply not allow for certain Shepards to have ever existed, like Xilizhra's Control Shepard or Ieldra2's Synthesis Shepard. Each ME3 playthrough recognizes the choices your Shepards make within the framework the game provides. All Shepards, provided they aren't steeped in headcanon, are recognized as they make their way through ME3. That would not appear to be the case with a canonized sequel.

This puts the cart ahead of the horse. A sequel with Destroy canonization doesn't mean that the other outcomes couldn't have been: it means that the sequel with Destroy can't be a result of those other outcomes. Your depiction of the cause-effect relationship is reversed: a child may be dependent on the coupling of the parents, but the coupling of the parents isn't dependent on the child.

A sequel with a Destroy canon simply means that it follows a destroy canon. If Control or Synthesis head in different directions... so be it. Those are Control or Synthesis canons. They could be reflected in their own games, or left to the player's imagination, or whatever else. They don't have to subordinate themselves to 'Shepherd picked Control and the Reapers and Geth and synthetics died anyway' to bring themselves into the Destroy timeline.

[Philosophaster]

@Dean_the_Young


http://dictionary.re.../validation?s=t

Validate

1.
to make valid; substantiate; confirm
2.
to give legal force to; legalize.
3.
to give official sanction, confirmation, or approval to, as elected officials, election procedures, documents, etc.: to validate a passport.

Synonyms:1. authenticate, verify, prove.

The noun form being validation.

But as I have already said, probably poor word choice on my part. Then again, I never used the word "validation" until Alan introduced it. I had used invalidated as it relates to a choice that seemingly offers multiple options but has only one recognized outcome that would be considered true. The assumed outcomes of the other options become invalidated. Mind you that this was working with my faulty premise from before you made your counterpoints. As I understand it, you are saying that choices not reflected in the canon continuity as established by BioWare are not nullified. I am simply being presented with the sequel to one possible outcome, correct?

As for the rest of your post; it sounds to me as though you are saying that any canonized sequel would itself be an alternate universe relative to the player's experience with the game if it were not to match. Am I correct in thinking that is your stance or am I mistaken?

There is also something unrelated to the discussion at hand I'd like to point out. I am not being nitpicky for the purpose of antagonizing you, but you strike me as a meticulous person (I mean it as a compliment). I think you would want to correct the error. The protagonist's surname is "Shepard" and not "Shepherd."

Modifié par inconsiderate rick, 21 août 2013 - 07:57 .

[DarthLaxian]

without having read the opening posting, i have to say:

yes, i didn't like much of the game (the gameplay was fine, but the story and everything else was atrocious IMHO and i am still FURIOUS with Bioware for pushing that trash at us (i hope they can clear the air with DA:I as DA2 was not all that good either (it had its moments though - much more then ME3 (pretty few good moments IMHO)))

so, yes, i dislike/hate most of ME3

greetings LAX

[Killdren88]

Not counting the ending considering that always clouds my opinion with anger.

It could have been far better than what we got. Like some other I was expecting a trial scene at the start of the game for Shep. That would have been a lovely way to catch you up on all the choices you made in the past.

Of course the auto dialogue was a fairly large problem for me. Felt more like Gears of War with limited dialogue interaction. The Story as well could have been polished as well. I'm fine with magical macguffins when they are called for, but I could see this game do without that. I'm by no means a storyteller, but they could have gone so many other ways with the story it is a little disheartening to see what they came up with.

The way the went about side mission was sorta odd as well. Why ease drop on people's problems when one could go up to the said person and offer assistance. Not to mention space exploration that which was required to do these missions were a bore. Scanning planets while avoiding reapers is not fun. They needed to go back to the formula of Mass Effect 1 and let us land on various planets and allow us to explore them. We could still had the encounters with the local wildlife, Reaper and Cerberus forces, but sadly what we got was a rather liner affair. Not related to RPGs, but to over done TPS.

My last real issues was the limited interaction with characters. I know we are racing against the clock to try to defeat the Reapers, but that doesn't mean we cannot talk to the others in between missions. The time in between the travel could have been used for that. Wile the Normandy is flying from place to place Shep could have gone all around the ship talked to friends and such. We could have gotten much more than what we gotten, and I wish Bioware had at the very least another year to do all that was needed. The stockholders could have waited for a finished product with it's success would have jumped their stock price up thus making a larger profit.

It had its moments, but as a whole, no I didn't like the majority of the game.

[Barquiel]

I really enjoyed ME3 up to Rannoch. But the game started going downhill from there. Thessia, Horizon and Cronos Station were mediocre at best (totally linear, no decisions...Kai Leng). And Priority Earth was simply disappointing (apart from the farewell scenes). The DLC missions were enjoyable again.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Hmm, can't say I agree. Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game in close to every way.

[Kataphrut94]

I would argue the majority was the best part of Mass Effect 3.

[Erez Kristal]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Hmm, can't say I agree. Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game in close to every way.

if you think turning yourself in is the best course of action and like the idea of the reapers using ftl to reach into the galaxy unhindered. then your answer makes a lot of sense

[Steelcan]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Hmm, can't say I agree. Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game in close to every way.

No

[Br3admax]

Steelcan wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Hmm, can't say I agree. Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game in close to every way.

No

Yes. Look at how much work opinions get done. 

[dorktainian]

lack of quality control is apparent all over mass effect 3. too rushed imo. ripped out content. poor graphics. shoddy editing. day one dlc. multiplayer being crucial to single player galactic readiness. a completely broken quest system. edi sexbot. the retard logic of the crudible. starjar. talis face reveal beeechslap. and then the final insult of the breath scene.....possibly the most crucial scene in the entire game reduced to a tease.