93 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...
ooohh whoopdi doo....they have to make some npc models and some lines of dialogue. If the plot isn't about the Krogan or Quarians, then the game can go on with or without them.

When in doubt, trivialize a choice

Refuse doesn't even count as you don't even get the achievement for completing the game. It is essentially a glorified game over cutscene for those who were too stubborn and selfish to save the universe. Sort of like if everyone died in ME2s suicide mission, Bioware officially stated: well if that's what happened in your playthrough, that's where your story ends.

No, really, tell us how you really feel.

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

There's way too many loose ends with the Krogan storyline to just pass it up.

Wrex or Wreav, Cure or Sabotage - and how those 4 vary in different combinations.

Then Eve. Then Eve's warning about possible civil war if Wreav acts up.

Then Grunt, if alive.

Then if you kept the Rachni queen alive and lost Arlakh company. If you sabotaged the cure, and Grunt still lives, will he be pissed if you also saved the Rachni? Or if you let the Queen die, and you sabotage, will he forgive it? In this scenario, Krogan won't be cured, but you'll probably enact something close to Okeer's vision - a badass Krogan like Grunt surviving the aftermath of sabotage and surviving the slow destruction of Tuchanka, crawling atop all of the dead.

Or, if you did everything "ideally", and cured the Genophage, have Eve alive, have Wrex and Grunt alive.. then what becomes of Wrex and Grunt? Does Wrex eventually pass the baton? Or does he live out his life with a sore quad, siring half of Tuchnanka, and eventually overrun the galaxy with Krogan?

....

Sigh. Eh, maybe they should ignore it actually. To quote Mordin: "Too many variables! Too many variables!"

Bah, clearly these are all unimportant details

[Mcfly616]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]Mcfly616 wrote...
ooohh whoopdi doo....they have to make some npc models and some lines of dialogue. If the plot isn't about the Krogan or Quarians, then the game can go on with or without them.[/quote]

When in doubt, trivialize a choice [/quote] so, by you're definition, if the next games plot doesn't explore the intricacies of the Krogan and the Quarians, then our choices are essentially trivialized? Hmm going by that logic, the fact that some characters died in ME2 and were replaced by brand new characters in ME3, and the story wasn't solely focused on these characters means that their deaths were trivialized....


Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever.

[quote]
Refuse doesn't even count as you don't even get the achievement for completing the game. It is essentially a glorified game over cutscene for those who were too stubborn and selfish to save the universe. Sort of like if everyone died in ME2s suicide mission, Bioware officially stated: well if that's what happened in your playthrough, that's where your story ends.
[quote]

No, really, tell us how you really feel.
[/quote]



not how I feel. It's a fact. Honestly, I like the refuse cutscene. I thought it was well done. Doesn't change the fact that you don't get the achievement. When the entire galaxy's fate hangs in the balance, and you make a decision based solely on your pride and ideals, that's selfish and stubborn, yes.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 27 janvier 2014 - 05:11 .

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
ooohh whoopdi doo....they have to make some npc models and some lines of dialogue. If the plot isn't about the Krogan or Quarians, then the game can go on with or without them.

When in doubt, trivialize a choice

so, by you're definition, if the next games plot doesn't explore the intricacies of the Krogan and the Quarians, then our choices are essentially trivialized? Hmm going by that logic, the fact that some characters died in ME2 and were replaced by brand new characters in ME3, and the story wasn't solely focused on these characters means that their deaths were trivialized....


Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever.

In almost all cases, yes, the deaths were trivialized.  Of course after ME2's treatment of the ME1 crew I kinda expected that.  But it doesn't make it any less true.

And now you're talking about doing the exaact same thing to entire species.  Handwaving their fates and thier very existence as unimportant.

Yeah that would go over well.

not how I feel. It's a fact. Honestly, I like the refuse cutscene. I thought it was well done. Doesn't change the fact that you don't get the achievement. When the entire galaxy's fate hangs in the balance, and you make a decision based solely on your pride and ideals, that's selfish and stubborn, yes.

Yeah, pride in self and others, having ideals you're wiling to fight for.  Totally for suckers.

Bend the knee.  Submit.  The lesson of ME3.

[Mcfly616]

Honestly, I'm utterly indifferent as to whether the game is a prequel, side-quel, sequel or AU.


I only have 2 stipulations:

1. we don't see or hear from any of Shepard's crew or squadmates at all. Zero. Nada. Time for Bioware to stop applying "it's a small world" to the entire galaxy.

2. If it happens to be a sequel, they import our choices and set it centuries into the future. Otherwise, don't do it.

[SNascimento]

From the title I actually thought the speculation was based on more than just what we've already got.

[Mcfly616]

iakus wrote...


In almost all cases, yes, the deaths were trivialized.  Of course after ME2's treatment of the ME1 crew I kinda expected that.  But it doesn't make it any less true.

And now you're talking about doing the exaact same thing to entire species.  Handwaving their fates and thier very existence as unimportant.

Yeah that would go over well.

if that's your perspective of trivial, fair enough. I'm not sure what sort of galactic importance you place on a single species. I for one would imagine that life would go on. Maybe even a newly uplifted species would take their place on the galactic stage.

Pride in self and others, having ideals you're wiling to fight for.  Totally for suckers.

Bend the knee.  Submit.  The lesson of ME3.

more like, you can have beans, or you can have rice, orrr you can have both.......or you can just sit there and starve to death. Your call.


Pride isn't for suckers. Just don't trust it to keep you alive.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 27 janvier 2014 - 05:35 .

[Dr_Extrem]

there is a simple "rule" .. or better "equation" to explain the mass effect universe and its success.


   Shepard (pc who can be customised and roleplayed)
+ Crew (some of the best sidekicks in gaming history)
+ Normandy (Illusion of freedom and a very cool spacecraft)
+ nice gameplay (i prefer the mass effect 2 style with more layers of protection)
------------------------
tons of cash


the players loved the characters and the universe they lived in - not the plot. the people played mass effect 2 because of the characters and shepards interaction with them was made well. the absence of a logical, driving and meaningful plot was tolerated, because it was fun spending time with the crew.

movies like "the devil's brigade" and "the dirty dozen" were not watched because of their plot .. people wanted to see the characters and action.

to a point, a weak plot can be masked with good characters but at a certain point, this concept stops to work and the cardhouse collapses.

 

shepard +crew + normandy + not too far fetched plot = works


it would be careless not to keep this in mind.



"how i would do it"

a remake could work, because all characters are available and it would be a perfect opportunity to make a new set of games from scratch.


i would:

- start the new story line (or line of stories) on eden prime (just like mass effect 1 did), 
- avoid immortal good-machines, 
- introduce a single managable overarching plot/concept, 
- introduce diabolic antagonist (who is evil by his/her own nature),
- avoind changing the mood/colour of the universe,
- not sponsor player based, galaxy-wide changes,
- concentrate on the characters and their relationships to each other,
- avoid bending the own in-universe laws too much.


we would have the chance to "refall" in love with the characters and the universe. 

the new star trek movies show, that it can be done without ending in a total desaster.



my 2 cents ... these are not the droids you're looking for ...

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

Paragon is going to be the one tempted to hold on to ideals and try to keep everyone alive as much as possible. They can't do it with a Destroy choice. Renegade drops their ideals and is willing to commit genocide. He only cares about what little he can salvage from the war.

Well, technically, doing whatever's necessary for victory is the Renegade ideal. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that Renegades don't have ideals?

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

if that's your perspective of trivial, fair enough. I'm not sure what sort of galactic importance you place on a single species. I for one would imagine that life would go on. Maybe even a newly uplifted species would take their place on the galactic stage.

The importance would be in the game, you could never again have a full krogan, quarian, or geth character because of what could happen in ME3.

At best, they'd get the Ashley/Kaidan treatment, where there is a stand-in in case of death.  But you saw the treatment they got.  They're hardly there at all for the second half of the game.

Or the Bethany/Carver treatment from DA2.  One or the other dies at the beginning of the game, and the other ends up leaving after Act 1, and only make occassional appearances in Acts 2 and 3.

more like, you can have beans, or you can have rice, orrr you can have both.......or you can just sit there and starve to death. Your call.


Pride isn't for suckers. Just don't trust it to keep you alive.

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

Maybe Saren had it right after all.

[FlyingSquirrel]

StreetMagic wrote...

There's way too many loose ends with the Krogan storyline to just pass it up.

Wrex or Wreav, Cure or Sabotage - and how those 4 vary in different combinations.

Then Eve. Then Eve's warning about possible civil war if Wreav acts up.

Then Grunt, if alive.

My guess - and again this is just a guess - is that if this is a sequel with krogan characters, there will be a vague reference to the genophage being cured and no details past that. So you can assume that Shepard and Mordin cured it, or that somebody else cured it later. Any references to krogan leaders and politics will avoid naming names, and again you can imagine whatever you want as to *how* their situation came about. If they're at peace with the galaxy, then cooler heads prevailed, e.g. Wrex and Bakara are still in charge if they survived, or Wreav was deposed by somebody calmer or talked off the ledge. If they're out of control and starting conflicts, then Wrex and Bakara were deposed, or if they weren't around, then Wreav is on the warpath. The dialogue could just be something like, "The krogan knew the dangers of overpopulation and made sure it didn't happen again," or "We thought the krogan had a chance for a new direction, but unfortunately their most promising leaders were all killed."

I'm not saying any of this would be satisfying, just they could do it if they're determined to have the krogan involved and have it post-date the trilogy. Or, if it's an "ark ship" scenario, then they'll just say the crew left before the genophage was resolved one way or the other, so the characters wouldn't know what happened.

[Mcfly616]

iakus wrote...


The importance would be in the game, you could never again have a full krogan, quarian, or geth character because of what could happen in ME3.

At best, they'd get the Ashley/Kaidan treatment, where there is a stand-in in case of death.  But you saw the treatment they got.  They're hardly there at all for the second half of the game.

I see where you're coming from. This was certainly an issue with the VS. But I felt that was just more due to neglect more than anything else. They had 12 squadmates in ME2. They couldn't have one of those slots for the VS? Idk...variety is good and all, but 12 is about 4-5 than is necessary imo. I'm of the opinion that they spread themselves a bit thin (character-wise) in ME2.

They can do better. If they listened to fan feedback regarding the content given to the optional characters in the game, it will be alright. I think Bioware listened very well to post ME3 feedback as demonstrated in the dlc's that followed. (obviously not counting ITers or those that wanted a completely new ending)
. I think despite the lack of dialogue, they addressed fan feedback better than most devs do imo.

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

Maybe Saren had it right after all.

Saren, TIM, Anderson....they were all right.....from a certain point of view.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 27 janvier 2014 - 07:17 .

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...



I see where you're coming from. This was certainly an issue with the VS. But I felt that was just more due to neglect more than anything else. They had 12 squadmates in ME2. They couldn't have one of those slots for the VS? Idk...variety is good and all, but 12 is about 4-5 than is necessary imo. I'm of the opinion that they spread themselves a bit thin (character-wise) in ME2.

They can do better. If they listened to fan feedback regarding the content given to the optional characters in the game, it will be alright. I think Bioware listened very well to post ME3 feedback as demonstrated in the dlc's that followed. (obviously not counting ITers or those that wanted a completely new ending)
. I think despite the lack of dialogue, they addressed fan feedback better than most devs do imo.

It can and will be a problem for any character which can potentially be dead or absent.  Remember DA2 had this issue too.  If the quarians are potentially wiped out, you will not see any quarians which can be a full follower.  or as a major NPC even.  That goes the same for krogan.  No more Wrex or Grunt-like characters (save maybe in a Grunt-in-ME3 capacity)

And no rachni characters either.  Or geth. Especially given how popular Destroy is.  

It's not a neglect issue.  At least not entirely.  It's a zot issue.  Why waste resources on such variables when you can just stick a human or salarian there instead?

[GreyLycanTrope]

Having a magazine column as an outlet doesn't really make this guy's view that the follow up must somehow be a sequel carry any more weight.

While I personally don't really care where they go with the follow up I find it difficult to believe they'd invest so much in a controversial conclusion just to handwave it with retcons, for the follow up. Than again if marketing tells them that's where the moneys at it just might happen, in which case I'd expect much ire from what's left of the fanbase.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 27 janvier 2014 - 07:50 .

[Mcfly616]

iakus wrote...


It can and will be a problem for any character which can potentially be dead or absent.  Remember DA2 had this issue too.  If the quarians are potentially wiped out, you will not see any quarians which can be a full follower.  or as a major NPC even.  That goes the same for krogan.  No more Wrex or Grunt-like characters (save maybe in a Grunt-in-ME3 capacity)

And no rachni characters either.  Or geth. Especially given how popular Destroy is.  

It's not a neglect issue.  At least not entirely.  It's a zot issue.  Why waste resources on such variables when you can just stick a human or salarian there instead?

Meh.. I mean, look at my dude Javik... he's the last Prothean and all but steals every scene he's in haha.


So here's another reason why I think it's possible: stemming off my whole BW spread themselves thin (character-wise) regarding the overall trilogy.

Bioware doesn't need to make this game the first installment in a new series. Ideally it'll be a stand-alone story (which will benefit the branching narrative greatly). Now, BW bas already proven they can write 12 well-developed characters for a single game (for the most part). This is good, because hopefully this won't be the start of a new trilogy.

So, they can write 12 characters. However, unlike ME2, you'll only get 8 squadmate slots to fill, and 4 of those slots are interchangeable between the other 4 alternates.

So...the Quarians went the way of the dinosaurs in your ME3 playthrough? I guess the exiled male Quarian infiltrator squadmate isn't in the cards for you. But hey, you'll get the new bad ass Raloi everybody's been going on and on about (I still can't comprehend why). No Krogan? Uplifted Yahg squadmate. No Geth? Well, you must've chose Destroy. And you know the Catalyst was right. Our children's children will build synthetics and the chaos will return. New Synthetic squadmate!


Now, say you saved every species, well you can really roleplay and mix and match the squadmates to fit what you want in a crew. I feel like ME3 could've benefited from this greatly. I understand they couldn't bring back both the casts of the previous installment as squadmates, but say you could've chose between the VS or Miranda/Jacob on your ship. Maybe say: "sorry Ash, Miranda's got dat ass. You understand...besides, Hackett has that nice position waiting for you". And so on and so forth....Liara or Samara? Grunt or Vega? Role-play. Mix and match.

I don't think any of this will happen. I'm just saying that it seems possible albeit ambitious. I think BW needs to start getting ambitious again. However, I do expect that the Asari, Turians, Salarians, and Humans will be the main stay species of the series no matter what.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 27 janvier 2014 - 08:03 .

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Meh.. I mean, look at my dude Javik... he's the last Prothean and all but steals every scene he's in haha.


So here's another reason why I think it's possible: stemming off my whole BW spread themselves thin (character-wise) regarding the overall trilogy.

Bioware doesn't need to make this game the first installment in a new series. Ideally it'll be a stand-alone story (which will benefit the branching narrative greatly). Now, BW bas already proven they can write 12 well-developed characters for a single game (for the most part). This is good, because hopefully this won't be the start of a new trilogy.

So, they can write 12 characters. However, unlike ME2, you'll only get 8 squadmate slots to fill, and 4 of those slots are interchangeable between the other 4 alternates.

So...the Quarians went the way of the dinosaurs in your ME3 playthrough? I guess the exiled male Quarian infiltrator squadmate isn't in the cards for you. But hey, you'll get the new bad ass Raloi everybody's been going on and on about (I still can't comprehend why). No Krogan? Uplifted Yahg squadmate. No Geth? Well, you must've chose Destroy. And you know the Catalyst was right. Our children's children will build synthetics and the chaos will return. New Synthetic squadmate!


Now, say you saved every species, well you can really roleplay and mix and match the squadmates to fit what you want in a crew. I feel like ME3 could've benefited from this greatly. I understand they couldn't bring back both the casts of the previous installment as squadmates, but say you could've chose between the VS or Miranda/Jacob on your ship. Maybe say: "sorry Ash, Miranda's got dat ass. You understand...besides, Hackett has that nice position waiting for you". And so on and so forth....Liara or Samara? Grunt or Vega? Role-play. Mix and match.

I don't think any of this will happen. I'm just saying that it seems possible albeit ambitious. I think BW needs to start getting ambitious again. However, I do expect that the Asari, Turians, Salarians, and Humans will be the main stay species of the series no matter what.

Well, I'm glad you put that last part at the end how you don't think it'll happen, because there is no way in hell it will.  No way will they create full characters that might or might not exist in a given character's playthrough.  They're not going to invest that many zots in exclusive content.  Heck, I'm surprised Garrus and Tali got so much attention.  If they weren't such popular characters, they might have gotten the Ash/Kaidan treatment as well. 

Far more likely is what you get in ME3.  No character=no content.  Or at best, a Biff the Understudy.

[JonathonPR]

This is one of the few times I look forward to retcons in a setting. I prefer a lot of the little unique things that ME2 and ME3 missed out on. Other than the First and True Mass Effect I did not feel any real attachment to the other games or events. They did not need to be connected other than the setting. It is a big galaxy and the area covered by the relays plus most ftl systems is tiny. The possibility of entire civilizations rising and falling is huge. Exploration was my favorite part and I don't need a galactic threat to be motivated or feel success.

Setting the Reaper's motivation back to unknown and leaving it that way would be great. It is an annoying trend to have some great truth that is uncovered. Games focus on that being what happens and it is boring. It becomes saturated in the game market and now I feel no motivation in games, movies, television, and books when the subject comes up. I get the vibe that it is trying to be psudo biblical/spiritual and deep but only really happens when the creators are more interested in the idea and exploring it rather than being concerned with how they will be perceived.

I like change like this. It allows them to tinker with ideas and game elements without being bogged down by past decisions. Gets around the whole "but what about?" problem of fitting everything together. Unlike a statue the whole thing wont be broken but anther piece will be made and molded. The second/alternate timeline in the new Star Trek is an example of how it allows things in the setting to be changed in some ways and make them new.