1814 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Star Wars would be an old IP, as in Knights of the Old Republic.

[rapscallioness]

so BW is now working on 4 IP's?

DA/ME/Star Wars/ and mystery IP?

edit: I'm just trying to figure out if this new IP is indeed new, or if it's a new take/chapter in the star wars universe. I'm not so sure anymore.

Modifié par rapscallioness, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:31 .

[Invisible Man]

rapscallioness wrote...

so BW is now working on 4 IP's?

DA/ME/Star Wars/ and mystery IP?

edit: I'm just trying to figure out if this new IP is indeed new, or if it's a new take/chapter in the star wars universe. I'm not so sure anymore.

4IPs? I must be out of the loop, but I have been sick a lot lately, and not keeping track of the gaming news, but dam. I guess that could explain a few things.

[rapscallioness]

I really have no idea what's going on tbh. I know there are the 3 IP's. DA, ME and the new one.

But BW is also supposed to be working on a Star Wars game, too. Soooo....idk if the star wars and "new" ip are one in the same, or not.....

[ruggly]

I haven't heard anything about a new Star Wars IP from Bioware. Last thing they did Star Wars related was release an expansion for SWTOR.

[JamesFaith]

ruggly wrote...

I haven't heard anything about a new Star Wars IP from Bioware. Last thing they did Star Wars related was release an expansion for SWTOR.

Few months ago EA announced that they are preparing 3 games from Star Wars universe and mentioned BW with Visceral Games and DICE.

[durasteel]

I'm really curious now about who ultimately made the call that "Shepard has to die." If Casey wanted to end on a positive note and Mac rhino-charged ahead with the crap ending, with the result of seriously damaging the reputation of the Mass Effect franchise and the BioWare studio, it is difficult to imagine that Casey would allow Mac to remain on the Mass Effect team, much less be promoted.

Maybe Ray Muzyka had something to do with it. He certainly had the authority to thwart Casey, and he was the one who came out with the "not changing it, because art!" statement. Never heard of him screwing with the writers before, but maybe trying to integrate into the EA corporate structure drove him temporarily insane. He did quit abruptly soon thereafter, so...

Maybe someone who was part if it all will write a tell-all book about it. I'd read it.

[Only-Twin]

durasteel wrote...

I'm really curious now about who ultimately made the call that "Shepard has to die." If Casey wanted to end on a positive note and Mac rhino-charged ahead with the crap ending, with the result of seriously damaging the reputation of the Mass Effect franchise and the BioWare studio, it is difficult to imagine that Casey would allow Mac to remain on the Mass Effect team, much less be promoted.

Maybe Ray Muzyka had something to do with it. He certainly had the authority to thwart Casey, and he was the one who came out with the "not changing it, because art!" statement. Never heard of him screwing with the writers before, but maybe trying to integrate into the EA corporate structure drove him temporarily insane. He did quit abruptly soon thereafter, so...

I don't believe anyone was consciously trying to do anything negative. The concept for the ending could have turned out a lot better if the writing didn't fall apart. I think the genral idea had potential. 

A good example would be The Road, by Cormac McCarthy. It's depressing, ambiguous and controversial, but the ending is interesting and worth talking about.

I feel like Bioware wanted to do something similar - a controversial ending worthy of debate - but the writing ruined it. 

Just my opinion. 

[crimzontearz]

Point is, thanks to EA, we will likely never know for sure, that, and speculating anything negative about it result in the BSN knights coming out of the woodwork claiming lies, slander and defamation so....

[Mangalores]

iakus wrote...
...

Lack of survival is a serious problem when you spend five years and three games showing SHepard as the quintiselltial survivor, who can get out of any situaton with enough brains, preparation, a silver tongue, or enough bullets.  All of Shepard's backgrounds show him/her escaping at least one near-death scenerio before the games even begin.

...

See, there it is.  You are okay with it.  Others are not.  And Shepard wasn't a "messianic" figure any more than John McClanefrom Die Hard was before Mac took the reins

ME2 resurrection theme based on Shepard being "special" ... for no good reason. From ME2 onwards there is constantly stuff inserted that something elusive is more special about him than being a N7 or Spectre. From that point onward it's the Martyr/Messiah story. I loathed that, but it is in the narration.

Thing is given the odds and telling a Messiah story anything without sacrifice would be toothless. As it is it was already pretty toothless. Just consider the suicide mission. If you play normal, none dies... what kind  of suicide mission is it when you have to make no tough choice anywhere? Virmire was more difficult than that. On a suicide mission I expect a commander to have to send people to their deaths to make the mission work. And the Reapers should have a thousand times that.

You are talking as if Shepard's qualities could save him/her from half the stuff that happens. How does sweettalking, combat rolling and gunslinging precisely help you against an orbital laser gun? He is lucking out constantly through all three games of not being just shot by something he has no chance of seeing. The only reason to think he must survive is because BW introduced the idea of Shepard being special/the Messiah.

I'm talking about BW not preparing you for the matter of fact that if you play the story straight there will be an end point where the hero runs out of luck and he can be whatever quinessential survivalist he wants to be and he still dies. That's actually how you usually play this kind of story about the carefree badass action hero when you add cosmic dangers like Space Squids: End of the rope. The hero has nowhere to run and all that luck he had up to that point won't be enough this time so he just has one thing left to do. In most cases not killing the hero at that stage is just lazy.

You think Shepard has to have an option to survive because he survived once already before the games. Well,  BW should have told you that that's a logic fallacy and if you are fighting Satan you might have to put down more chips than that even on your best playthrough.

The question of agency is deeper in the story than Shepard surviving. I get that many people would love that, but I am not argueing from what one loves but from how stories can work. You hating the protagonist dieing could be the perfect reaction in a very good ending. There is no big fuss about the "Red Wedding", is there?

If it were a good ending choosing inevitable death I would defend BW on their "artistic integrity claim", as it's not I'm more concerned about why it's not a good ending. The way they tried to tell the story they had to kill him. It is just that the story is broken in that critical final act starting with the rush job from the Cerberus HQ onward (with the Citadel being zapped to Earth for convenience out of nowhere and all that.).


I give you, you could tell the story in a different way where survival can be an option but that would be even further from what BW tried to do with ME3. They wanted the heroic death end, for that not to be the case they would have to tone down the Reaper threat and change the story entirely. From a consistency standpoint I would have prefered that even, since it wouldn't have broken the entire bloody universe.

[crimzontearz]

Uhm....soooo people who prefer the hero surviving can go **** themselves because "author's fiat"?

...no thanks, this only makes me more sure of my.position about spoilers pre-purchase

[Ultrabobo]

I'm on and off the forums, i play ME once or twice a year and somehow feel compelled to take a look at what's happening. Seems nothing really changes in time.

I still don't understand why this thing about survival and sacrifice must be mutually exclusive.
Why there's no middle ground? Why couldn't both options coexist?
I'm talking theory now, because the game is done, the story is over and will stay the same forever now (the vanilla one, i know about mods).

As long as i remember on these forums it has always been one camp for survival and happy ending, one for death and sacrifice. Both are good options, if well done, but still options.
In a series about decisions and consequences, i'd expect options. Still talking about the theory here, i'm past rambling about the endings, i'm rambling about threads and discussions and having to be right.

You like the idea of the hero dying? You're right.
I like the idea of the hero surviving? I'm right.

To at least try to say something on topic, i don't know if there were lessons to be learned, or if something has been learned or not. We'll have to wait for the next game(s if we count DA:I) and see where it goes, until then is all up in the air

[Iakus]

crimzontearz wrote...

Uhm....soooo people who prefer the hero surviving can go **** themselves because "author's fiat"?

...no thanks, this only makes me more sure of my.position about spoilers pre-purchase

+1

it's the antithesis of "player agency"

[Iakus]

Mangalores wrote...

You think Shepard has to have an option to survive because he survived once already before the games. Well,  BW should have told you that that's a logic fallacy and if you are fighting Satan you might have to put down more chips than that even on your best playthrough.

The question of agency is deeper in the story than Shepard surviving. I get that many people would love that, but I am not argueing from what one loves but from how stories can work. You hating the protagonist dieing could be the perfect reaction in a very good ending. There is no big fuss about the "Red Wedding", is there?

If it were a good ending choosing inevitable death I would defend BW on their "artistic integrity claim", as it's not I'm more concerned about why it's not a good ending. The way they tried to tell the story they had to kill him. It is just that the story is broken in that critical final act starting with the rush job from the Cerberus HQ onward (with the Citadel being zapped to Earth for convenience out of nowhere and all that.).

No, I have no objection to Shepard dying.  I object to the player having no say in the matter.  And I object to the one gesture otherwise as an essentially afterthought of an easter egg.

the Red Wedding was part of George R R Martin's  story.  He never pretended we had any say in what happened there.  Or to any of the Starks, Lanisters, Freys, etc.  Bioware, however, told us these were our Shepards, and our chocies shaped the stroyies.

And then when it came to the survival of the protagonist, basically said "frak you" "artistic integrity"to whoever objects.

[JamesFaith]

Mangalores wrote...

The question of agency is deeper in the story than Shepard surviving. I get that many people would love that, but I am not argueing from what one loves but from how stories can work. You hating the protagonist dieing could be the perfect reaction in a very good ending. There is no big fuss about the "Red Wedding", is there?

Actually there was... appealing to author to change it and write new version, petitions and such.

In fact it was biggest and most persisting protest about book event I know since Dan Simmons Summer of night in 1991.

[CaIIisto]

The choices were very poorly handled.

Having Shepard (possibly) survive in ONLY one ending was always going to lead to problems. So the argument is that they go down the ambiguous route with high EMS destroy because there's a concern that any clearer picture of Shepard surviving will skew the choice and most people would pick destroy. The flaw there is that anyone who's going to pick destroy JUST to save Shepard, in the absence of a clear 'Shepard lives' ending, will pick the next best thing anyway. If Shepard's THAT important to them then they're going to pick the one where he/she MIGHT survive ahead of all the other choices where he/she definitely DOESN'T, hence again, that should never have been a factor.

The whole issue of Shepard sacrificing him/her self should have been presented better. Ok, yeah, Shepard can survive, but that means that Earth gets toasted, or the Normandy gets blitzed, or your LI dies. As it stands, I pick destroy, and the downside is that the Geth are taken out (don't care, already wiped them out on Rannoch, go Team Quarian!), and EDI buys the farm (sorry Jeff, but I don't like EDI THAT much!). That contrasts with Synthesis which I find completely abhorrent, and Control, which TIM has been advocating for the majority of the game, and again something I wouldn't even entertain as a realistic possibility.

Refuse is a slap in the face "You lose, fook you, pass go and don't collect $200" move, but I'd still pick that ahead of Synthesis or Control.

Technical choices, but realistically no choice, for me at least.

The whole way that the choices were presented and incentivised,was poor IMO. The issue around Shepard either living or dying, should never really have been an issue, and it probably wouldn't have been, had BW not screwed the pooch with the choices.

[TheRealJayDee]

After having read through this whole thread (lacking better things to do on my night shift) all I can contribute is that I'm really happy I was able to mostly just stop caring about Mass Effect after the Citadel DLC release. Maybe in a few years I'll try another complete trilogy playthrough, but for now ME is something that's simply over. In my opinion it ended in a frustratingly unsatisfying way, because for me neither the original ending nor the EC (or the Citadel DLC, for that matter) provided an ending for most of my Shepards that I was content with.

I would have prefered an ending that felt satisfying on both an intellectual and emotional level. I would reluctantly have settled for either one of those. I got neither, and that's just how it is. It sucks, and I wish it wasn't so, but, yeah, tough luck.

I actually don't give a **** about worrying wether they learned their lesson or not, especially since the exact nature of that lesson is highly subjective - I'll just make sure I learned mine. There won't be full-price purchases of Bioware games for the next few titles, regardless of how good they look or what franchise they're associated with. As it is I'm left with no particular interest in DA:I or the next ME game anyways. Once there are trailers I will watch them, and when the game are released I'll see how they are received.

And that's all there is to say, for me at least. 

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Watchmen

It's "Watchmen". Sorry, but I'm unable not to correct this whenever I see it. 

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 30 décembre 2013 - 01:50 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

iakus wrote...

Mangalores wrote...

You think Shepard has to have an option to survive because he survived once already before the games. Well,  BW should have told you that that's a logic fallacy and if you are fighting Satan you might have to put down more chips than that even on your best playthrough.

The question of agency is deeper in the story than Shepard surviving. I get that many people would love that, but I am not argueing from what one loves but from how stories can work. You hating the protagonist dieing could be the perfect reaction in a very good ending. There is no big fuss about the "Red Wedding", is there?

If it were a good ending choosing inevitable death I would defend BW on their "artistic integrity claim", as it's not I'm more concerned about why it's not a good ending. The way they tried to tell the story they had to kill him. It is just that the story is broken in that critical final act starting with the rush job from the Cerberus HQ onward (with the Citadel being zapped to Earth for convenience out of nowhere and all that.).

No, I have no objection to Shepard dying.  I object to the player having no say in the matter.  And I object to the one gesture otherwise as an essentially afterthought of an easter egg.

the Red Wedding was part of George R R Martin's  story.  He never pretended we had any say in what happened there.  Or to any of the Starks, Lanisters, Freys, etc.  Bioware, however, told us these were our Shepards, and our chocies shaped the stroyies.

And then when it came to the survival of the protagonist, basically said "frak you" "artistic integrity"to whoever objects.

Robb Stark was A protagonist, not THE protagonist. I didn't find him particularly compelling or deep myself. I liked Tyrion Lannister (the dwarf) much much better. He's a far deeper character. I give a damn about him. I never really gave a damn about Robb Stark. His younger sister (the one that was pretending to be a boy) yes. The one who was married to Joffrey is dumber than a box of rocks. Jon Snow I find interesting. Daenyeres Targarean I find interesting. The Lannisters are interesting.

The Red Wedding was the result of pure ungodly stupidity on the part of Robb Stark. If Stark had behaved like any self-respecting king and married the woman he was supposed to there wouldn't have been a Red Wedding. He could have kept Jeyne Westerling as his mistress and all would have been well with his family and the world. But no.... He decided to "marry for love and be stupid" and got his family killed and lost everything in the process. It was a classic tragedy where our "hero" through his own faults meets his downfall. His fault being his naivety.

Now with Shepard? I could handle Shepard dying in the end. I almost expected it. In fact, Shepard could have died at Anderson's scene right after Hackett called when she got up, then if they had her make contact with that panel one more time and had it fire the Crucible, and call it The End. She collapses and dies. I was ready for Shepard to die right then. I might have applauded it as art. One ending - destroy the reapers - that's what the Crucible did, period, and had the ending like the destroy EC, except have the memorial scene after the take off, and have the LI put the name up even if the LI is from ME2 (I think this just solved the Liara hate). And even the breath scene? Sure why not, but show more than just a torso and maybe a couple breaths, maybe have a leg or arm move, and stop half way on an inhale. I think that would have sealed it.

Instead they dragged it out for another 10 minutes with the conversation with that stupid Starbrat and the three choices and the only difference between them was the color of the explosions on your screen. It broke the narrative. it broke the emotional impact of the moment and left you sitting there WTF???

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 30 décembre 2013 - 02:08 .

[AlanC9]

I would have been going WTF if they'd followed your scheme, myself. Despite all of the mystical crap stuffed into ME, it always read like sci-fi to me anyway. And in sci-fi you're really not supposed to just declare that the killer robats had no purpose and were just doing silly bad stuff for no reason.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 décembre 2013 - 03:23 .

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...
And in sci-fi you're really not supposed to just declare that the killer robats had no purpose and were just doing silly bad stuff for no reason.

Killbots would need to be programmed, so yes there should be an expressable purpose.

What the Reapers were before ME3 (well, the ending of ME2 really)... not as much.

And even in the first case, not explicitly stating what the purpose is does not mean they have no purpose.

[JamesFaith]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Killbots would need to be programmed, so yes there should be an expressable purpose.

What the Reapers were before ME3 (well, the ending of ME2 really)... not as much.

And even in the first case, not explicitly stating what the purpose is does not mean they have no purpose.

Well I personally saw them as some failed experiment with "killbots" since ME1 (simple fact they are machines shattered all illusion of Space Cthulhu for me) and I never took their rhetoric litteraly, for me it was just arrogant talk of old machine with God complex.

No explanations of their purpose would be big dissapointment for me.

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
And in sci-fi you're really not supposed to just declare that the killer robats had no purpose and were just doing silly bad stuff for no reason.

Killbots would need to be programmed, so yes there should be an expressable purpose.

What the Reapers were before ME3 (well, the ending of ME2 really)... not as much.

And even in the first case, not explicitly stating what the purpose is does not mean they have no purpose.

Sure, but we all know they didn't have a purpose. Bio came up with the cycles in ME1 because they sounded cool, and then couldn't figure out why the Reapers did the cycles.

Which would have been OK if they really were thinking of ME as Lovecraftian horror rather than SF.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 décembre 2013 - 07:09 .

[CrutchCricket]

JamesFaith wrote...
Well I personally saw them as some failed experiment with "killbots" since ME1 (simple fact they are machines shattered all illusion of Space Cthulhu for me) and I never took their rhetoric litteraly, for me it was just arrogant talk of old machine with God complex.

No explanations of their purpose would be big dissapointment for me.

That's a rather narrow view. Why couldn't machines be sufficiently advanced to be pseudo-Lovecraftian?

And what's to say that they were only machines in ME1? Why, because their skin/hull looks metallic? They could've been a hybrid or an entirely new class of being.

There are more things in heaven and earth and all that... or at least in space.

[AlanC9]

You mean, advanced enough to be irrational? Funny definition of advanced.

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...
Sure, but we all know they didn't have a purpose. Bio came up with the cycles in ME1 because they sounded cool, and then couldn't figure out why the Reapers did the cycles.

Why do the cycles disprove purpose? Repetition doesn't remove purpose, in fact it strengthens it. If the Reapers killed everyone one time, that could conceivably be random. That they do it again and again implies purpose, it doesn't deny it.

And why do people always assume no stated purpose= creators couldn't think of anything? It may be likely that when ME1 was being made they didn't  think of anything because they didn't need to and they weren't sure there was going to be a sequel and thus a opportunity/requirement to explain. But that's not to say they couldn't think of something. And leaving origins or motives mysterious/ambiguous is a valid course of action creatively.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 30 décembre 2013 - 07:47 .