91 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

What people are "experiencing" is their own make believe headcanon(aka LARPing).

Live action role playing? I.e. dressing up as wizards and running around the woods?

Exactly!  That is what I did when playing Mass Effect!  

Playing MP while prancing around in the woods was never a good hosting experience, tbh.  

Modifié par spirosz, 11 novembre 2013 - 02:08 .

[AlanC9]

klarabella wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Seboist wrote...
Except that I can, a few brief interchangable fluff dialogues and cutscenes that exist in complete bubbles from everything else do not change a story. What people are "experiencing" is their own make believe headcanon(aka LARPing).

Huh? Getting the geth and/or quarians exterminated has nothing to do with headcanon.

What does it matter the moment you leave Rannoch?

So unless something's right in front of you all the time, it doesn't matter? If this is the standard for "mattering" then nothing in the game matters once the credits start playing. Is that your actual standard? Really?

How much does something have to be in front of you to "matter," anyway? In DA:O you get some different allied toons showing up in the endgame. This counts as "mattering"? Or are the RPGCodex guys right, and  all Bio games ever have always sucked?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 novembre 2013 - 02:45 .

[AlanC9]

Linkenski wrote...

The fact that choice was taken away from the player was icing on the cake, but I guess the outcry wouldn't have been as massive if we'd get to tell the Catalyst to go home with his idiot theory and his reaper armada.

Even though the Catalyst would just say "No" in reply?

I can see that. As a matter of RP it would have been better, yep. I'll hazard a guess that the writers didn't really want to have Shepard do something futile in the endgame, though I'd say that the same logic which brought us Refuse should have applied here.

OTOH, given the massive waves of butthurt that Refuse unleashed, I'm not sure adding this futile argument would have made people feel better. It might have even made them feel worse.

[AlexMBrennan]

So unless something's right in front of you all the time, it doesn't matter? If this is the standard for "mattering" then nothing in the game matters once the credits start playing. Is that your actual standard? Really?

You you try being a bit more black and white? At least DA gave you camp followers, summon-able allies and an epilogue... ME3 as shipped, not so much. Plus, guess what - if you keep telling people that every choice matters for five years then they might get a little bit angry if it turns out to be nothing but lies.

OTOH, given the massive waves of butthurt that Refuse unleashed

Context matters - Refuse was added after an unprecedented fan outrage and calls to have the ending changed; even if refuse would otherwise have been accepted it would inevitably have been seen as an insult from Bioware in that context.

[Cobalt2113]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

So unless something's right in front of you all the time, it doesn't matter? If this is the standard for "mattering" then nothing in the game matters once the credits start playing. Is that your actual standard? Really?

You you try being a bit more black and white? At least DA gave you camp followers, summon-able allies and an epilogue... ME3 as shipped, not so much. Plus, guess what - if you keep telling people that every choice matters for five years then they might get a little bit angry if it turns out to be nothing but lies.

If we were only talking about the ending "as shipped" then I might agree with you. However if you consider the extended cut then your argument really doesn't hold much water. Hell, it's got about the longest epilogue I've ever seen in a game. If that didn't make you think your choices 'matter' then I don't think a couple of summonable allies is going to make much difference either. I'm with Alan on this one. If that's the way you see things then nothing's ever going to matter in a game. Once you turn off your machine it's going to be gone anyway.

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
You you try being a bit more black and white? At least DA gave you camp followers, summon-able allies and an epilogue... ME3 as shipped, not so much. Plus, guess what - if you keep telling people that every choice matters for five years then they might get a little bit angry if it turns out to be nothing but lies.

In retrospect Bio should have realized that their marketing was rsising unrealistic expectations, yep. Though I'm still a bit shocked that so many long-term Bio fans got into that position.

[Iakus]

Linkenski wrote...

ME3 failed because its ending was a coupout that ruined all meaning and sense found in ME1 and to some level, ME2.

The fact that choice was taken away from the player was icing on the cake, but I guess the outcry wouldn't have been as massive if we'd get to tell the Catalyst to go home with his idiot theory and his reaper armada.

No particular disagreement, except that the taking away of chocie was more than simply icing.  THey were both major failures of the game.

But yes, if we at least got to choose Shepard's fate, the outcry would not have been so great.  A pity that to this day denying this was not seen as a bad thing by the developers.

[jtav]

Shepard had an enormous effect on the world. If Shepard died in every single ending, I could still play games that were radically different from each other. "I didn't get a happy ending" is not the same thing as "My choices were irrelevebt." And BW was never under obligation to give you a happy ending. Not even in an RPG. The lady or the tiger is still a choice, even if neither lets the princess marry her love.

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

Shepard had an enormous effect on the world. If Shepard died in every single ending, I could still play games that were radically different from each other. "I didn't get a happy ending" is not the same thing as "My choices were irrelevebt." And BW was never under obligation to give you a happy ending. Not even in an RPG. The lady or the tiger is still a choice, even if neither lets the princess marry her love.

Problem is, the fate of the protagonist is one of the most visible, and to many, the most important outcome in a game.  Taking that away diminishes the entire game in many minds.  There are only two games I can think of that handled choice well, yet still led to the inevitable death of the protagonist.  And even then I'd say those games succeeded in spite of that fact, rather than because of it.

Bioware is not obligated to give a happy ending.  But as ME3 proved, it's really really hard to both respect chocie and go the tragic route in a satisfactory way.

The lady or the tiger is a choice.  The tiger or the tiger is not. Or at least, not much of one.

[fainmaca]

As futile as this seems, as a lot of the purpose in this thread, both by OP and responders, seems to be stemming wholly from negativity, I'm game to wade in here with my two cents.

First off, I strongly disagree with the use of the verb 'to matter' in this scenario. Whether or not something 'matters' is completely subjective to the person considering it. You can see that clearly here in this thread. Some of you clearly felt that the choices 'mattered' because of the knowledge you have as the gamer and because of what you add to the narrative in your own imagination. Some, like Karaphrut and jtav, seem to get more out of the story because they bring more emotionally into it themselves, while others evaluate the experience on a more technical or, may I say, clinical level and find it lacking. Not going to say who is right or wrong, or which is a better method for approaching the game, but you are approaching the game in different ways and then berating one another for using different measuring sticks when evaluating your experience. It's like a nose shouting at an eye for liking how something looks when, to the nose, it smells bad. Its stupid, arguing over it is stupid, and I hope you'll forgive me for refraining from using the term of whether or not a choice 'mattered'. For the sake of this post, I'll discuss whether a choice had an impact on the experience or not.

Secondly, I'll only consider the core game and the EC in this post. As a matter of course, DLC is somewhat divorced from the core game, so its value to this discussion is limited.

As far as I see it, there's four ways that the choices were expected to have an impact. Firstly, they were expected to affect our overall experience throughout the game. Second, they were expected to impact the setting as a whole. Thirdly, it was expected that the choices would affect the core narrative of the games, and finally, they were expected to have at least some influence over the conclusion of the Reaper War. It seems as though Bioware approached each of these separately, which is sensible enough in a project this big.

The first goal was certainly achieved. Little snippets of flavour text, NPC attitudes towards Shepard and one another, and the reputation/morality bars all contribute to this in some fashion. Granted, there are some areas where it falls short (Mordin's sudden change of heart even if Shepard was fiercely pro-Genophage in ME2, the lack of a big confrontation between lovers that seemed to be built up pre-release, and Liara's over friendliness regardless of how you treated her in previous interactions)., but for the most part it was done well. A lot of choices are remembered and acknowledged in some way. It was nice to see Jenna and Conrad brought together like that, and there were more than a few instances of this kind of acknowledgement that the player had previous experience within the setting. Like many have said, ME3 had a lot of dialogue recorded for it, and you'll never hear even the majority of it on any one playthrough. However, while this is all well and good, it is just garnish. A hint of flavouring in something much larger.

The second goal is somewhat less concretely fulfilled. We certainly make choices that should shake the setting to its core. Issues of galactic scales are dealt with right before the player. Anyone invested in Shepard or the ME setting as a whole can well imagine how this will impact the Galaxy going forwards. However, that's where things start to ring a little hollow. The writers begin to rely too much on inference and player imagination to fill in the gaps, rather than showing scenes and situations that accurately reflect a significant change to the setting. Sure, we may get to see the Geth and Quarians talk immediately after the Rannoch Reaper is toast, but where do we see the significant change this kind of resolution will bring? There is little to no real demonstration of how Shepard's actions have wrought change in the setting that goes beyond his own personal space. The epilogue slides are a sliver of compromise on this issue, showing whether the Krogan go to war in the future and who ends up inhabiting Rannoch further down the line, but its very minimal. We do affect the setting, but never in such a way that we get to experience it. This could have been resolved in a number or ways, such as changes to the crowds inhabiting the Citadel to show once warring races either still at loggerheads or perhaps slowly coming to terms with one another, or maybe granting the player the Crucible as a quest hub where he can witness his growing War Assets combining, the fruits of his efforts across the series. Just a few small things that are more passive changes to the atmosphere than actual scenes we take an active role in. Perhaps there was a time constraint that prevented this.

The third point is arguably the one that would require the most work. A branching narrative is not an easy thing to develop. In the few cases where we see it work, its often only done very close to the end so that differences can be minimalized (think Revan's betrayal at the end of KOTOR), or close to the beginning, such as in games that require that you choose a faction, although even simply allowing the player to choose where to go first (such as which Star Maps to go after first in KOTOR or where to go first in the other two ME games) can greatly increase the impression of malleability in the narrative, even if it is only a facade. In ME3's case, the narrative is extremely linear, the focus being more on elaborate set pieces that necessitated being executed in a particular order. There isn't even the possibility of choosing which allies to pursue first, granting the player a sense of agency within the story. The few moments where it does feel like the story diverges significantly along different paths, the narrative snaps back onto the central plotline almost immediately afterwards, negating any sensation of varying possibilities (funnily enough, its almost always Cerberus that causes the plot to be dragged back onto the rails once more. looks like they're the villains in more ways than one!). In short, it seems as though Bioware are constantly wanting to show you the next big idea they thought would be cool, without actually realising that all they're doing is dragging you around by the nose.

The final point, the impact our choices have upon the endings themselves, is undeniably the worst executed of the four. Mostly thanks to the EMS system, which was implemented rather than showing assets in action, being rushed through a generic, grey grind on our way to the Conduit was not a fulfilling representation of all that we had achieved. The disjointed nature of the ending issue in relation to the previous hundred or so hours of gameplay further heightened this sensation of underachievement. And, as I have stated elsewhere, the introduction of the concept of inevitability at the apex of a series whose base gameplay mechanic was self-determination was complete and utter folly.

In the end, the game fell short for many with regards to following through on previous choices. I know that the choice-consequence mechanic was a big decider in my buying into the franchise. As I pointed out, the window-dressing acknowledgements of previous experiences was nice, but my priority was on the following three points, where I was sorely disappointed.

TL:DR- Bioware tried. For some, they succeeded. For others, this game will stand the test of time as the biggest let-down in their gaming lives.

[Reorte]

The reason your choices didn't matter (final one aside in the EC) is because they simply didn't add up to changing anything, other than in the rather feeble war asset manner. The same Shepard still ends up in the same place with the same choices, unless (s)he really messed up, and even then that wouldn't matter for someone who's played lots of multiplayer. Tuchanka and Rannoch showed the sort of "choices mattering" and the way in which they would matter that a lot of people were expecting with the ending.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...

The reason your choices didn't matter (final one aside in the EC) is because they simply didn't add up to changing anything, other than in the rather feeble war asset manner. The same Shepard still ends up in the same place with the same choices, unless (s)he really messed up, and even then that wouldn't matter for someone who's played lots of multiplayer. Tuchanka and Rannoch showed the sort of "choices mattering" and the way in which they would matter that a lot of people were expecting with the ending.

You mean the same way the DA:O Warden ends up in the same place with the same choices?

Edit: I'm not trying to attack or defend either. I'm just a fan of applying standards uniformly.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 novembre 2013 - 09:46 .

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The reason your choices didn't matter (final one aside in the EC) is because they simply didn't add up to changing anything, other than in the rather feeble war asset manner. The same Shepard still ends up in the same place with the same choices, unless (s)he really messed up, and even then that wouldn't matter for someone who's played lots of multiplayer. Tuchanka and Rannoch showed the sort of "choices mattering" and the way in which they would matter that a lot of people were expecting with the ending.

You mean the same way the DA:O Warden ends up in the same place with the same choices?

Edit: I'm not trying to attack or defend either. I'm just a fan of applying standards uniformly.

No idea, I've not played DA:O.

[AlanC9]

Fair enough. How about KotOR? NWN? BG?

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fair enough. How about KotOR? NWN? BG?

Nope.

ME2 was the first BioWare game I'd played (really, really wish I'd played 1 first). I was intending to go through BioWare's back catalogue but ME3 rather put me off wanting to give them any more money.

[Oni Changas]

So unless something's right in front of you all the time, it doesn't matter? If this is the standard for "mattering" then nothing in the game matters once the credits start playing. Is that your actual standard? Really?

Is it not BW's job to tell us the story? I shouldn't have to go all Barney & Friends to make sense of the literary **** ups. You want imagination land? Buy a CYOA book.