580 réponses à ce sujet

[marcelo caldas]

KaiserShep wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

I do love how seriously you're all considering this remote possibility.

Mass Effect: The Jacob Chronicles

hahahahaha, Jacob and James team up to fight Kai Leng

Modifié par caldas, 10 février 2014 - 01:10 .

[ElitePinecone]

StreetMagic wrote...

I kind of hope there's more to Brooks at least.. not so sure about clones. But like caldas says, it could work, I guess. As for Brooks, she's what I wish Miranda or Kai Leng were: Someone good at infiltration/sneakiness/deception. I could tolerate another Cerberus story if they were written that way. But maybe for other people, they've already overstayed their welcome.

Brooks in Citadel was the most compelling Cerberus operative we've seen in the games, I think. She was actually a zealot, complex, competent, plausibly written and more than a match for Shepard and the team. 

So, like, everything Kai Leng should have been. 

I wouldn't even mind more Cerberus in the future if they're more like her, and not a caricature of a cartoon villain organisation. The group needs far more depth to be interesting, and a properly-thought-out purpose and manifesto beyond just blowing things up and yelling about humans all the time. 

Basically: there's a very interesting story thread in the ME universe about the extent to which humans are a part of the galaxy or feel threatened by it, and other than a few times in ME1 they've never done it proper justice. 

[Dr_Extrem]

breakdown71289 wrote...

I doubt Shepard's coming back again as his/her story was always meant to be a trilogy, and there's just so many more stories that can be told in this universe than through the eyes of one commander. Yes, Shepard played a very key and important role in the Mass Effect universe, but I'm sure there are others like him/her out there.

thats not correct ...

mass effect started as a single game - at first, no sequels were planed. if you look at how the stories focus changed from me1 to me2, the statement is believable. imo, they planed one isolated story and pulled the classic "b-horror-movie-ending" (the last scene after the credits show, that the monster survived) theme.

(basically, this was written by the new ceo right after the doctors quit)


they also wrote, that they are going to make a completely new sci-fi franchise.


wait and see.

[dreamgazer]

maaaad365 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

maaaad365 wrote...

Drew Karpyshyn's opinion should be consulted, he was the lead writer for ME 1 and 2 and there were no major complaints from the fans. 

False. Have you not read through the responses from the "hardcore fans" about the pointlessness of ME2's plot and the inanity of the Baby Reaper?

That's nothing compared to the ME3 ending. I didn't say that Drew was perfect, but he pleased most of the fans, including the majority of the hardcore players.

Eh, you're moving the goalposts.  You said that there were no major complaints, which there undoubtedly were: the science of Lazarus, the pointlessness of the Collector side-mission plot, the Cerberus railroading, "Ah yes, Reapers", Harbinger's schoolyard obsession, and that terrible Baby Reaper ending focused on the "essence of organics" were all heavily criticized.  And there were a healthy number of hardcore fans unhappy with the reduced presence of the VS and Liara in ME2. 

[ElitePinecone]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

mass effect started as a single game - at first, no sequels were planed. 

No.

That is not true.

The trilogy was always planned as a trilogy. From day one, Casey Hudson sold it to Bioware's upper management and Microsoft as a three-game arc that would cover the lifespan of the Xbox 360.

I suggest you read Geoff Keighley's Final Hours of ME3, it contains a lot of much more accurate information about how the series was created and the development process for ME/ME2/ME3.

[Mcfly616]

Yeah, it was always planned as a trilogy (I knew this back in 06 when I was following the development of the first game). The story was a planned trilogy from the very beginning, they were just hoping the first game would be successful enough to warrant the sequels.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Mass Effect was planned as a trilogy but not written as one.

[nallepuh86]

Plans can always and should chance accordingly if situation needs it. And it needs, because people want more shepard so they should give us more shepard.

[SwobyJ]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

mass effect started as a single game - at first, no sequels were planed. 

No.

That is not true.

The trilogy was always planned as a trilogy. From day one, Casey Hudson sold it to Bioware's upper management and Microsoft as a three-game arc that would cover the lifespan of the Xbox 360.

I suggest you read Geoff Keighley's Final Hours of ME3, it contains a lot of much more accurate information about how the series was created and the development process for ME/ME2/ME3.

Sort of.

The first game was designed sort of like a pilot episode. If it continues, awesome. If it get cancelled, then at least ME1 works well enough by itself (but damn, we can't deal with those Reapers).

But the Mass Effect setup itself was intended as a three game arc.

There is also the impression that they intended on a very different story pacing earlier too. I'm not sure they planned on Shepard lasting so long, but instead if they got everything they wanted to have in ME1, in it, then we would have had a new protagonist in ME2 and another one for ME3. 'Mass Effect' became the 'Shepard Trilogy', at least from my perception of things.

[SwobyJ]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Mass Effect was planned as a trilogy but not written as one.

Mostly agreed.

ME1 had a foundation but they even changed that foundation so many times during development that there was no full conception of where to go.

They designed ME2 more for that and if you pay attention you'd see ME2 flow into ME3 in more ways than most notice.

But even then, things happened in ME3 that surprised ME2 writers who didn't plan for that to happen.

From an outsider's POV, it looks like Casey gave it just enough direction to be workable, but the transition from Drew to Mac (though Mac was there since around the start) meant that this trilogy doesn't so much 'feel' like one.

Bioware's best move, if the haven't done it yet already, is figuring out MUCH more solidly what their main, unchangable, ideas will be for the next 2-3 games (especially if they're going to be in chronological order).

They can't have another situation where they go:
ME1 - Reapers! Ahh!
ME2 - Crap, what ARE Reapers? Erm, they're made from genetic goo! (with almost nothing in ME1 suggesting this)
ME3 - Crap, what are they even here for? Erm, preservation of organics! (with only few bits in ME1 and ME2 suggesting this)

There's ingredients in prior games that make things work just enough, but no one can say that the trilogy's main storyline flows well.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 10 février 2014 - 09:01 .

[ElitePinecone]

SwobyJ wrote...

The first game was designed sort of like a pilot episode. If it continues, awesome. If it get cancelled, then at least ME1 works well enough by itself (but damn, we can't deal with those Reapers).

Do you have a source or a quote for that? Because sorry, but I haven't ever heard or read anything like that.

[Dr_Extrem]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

mass effect started as a single game - at first, no sequels were planed. 

No.

That is not true.

The trilogy was always planned as a trilogy. From day one, Casey Hudson sold it to Bioware's upper management and Microsoft as a three-game arc that would cover the lifespan of the Xbox 360.

I suggest you read Geoff Keighley's Final Hours of ME3, it contains a lot of much more accurate information about how the series was created and the development process for ME/ME2/ME3.

in this case, they f****** it up so badly, that its guiness book worthy.

if you have the option to make more games - a trilogy - you write an overarching story for the trilogy, that concludes the trilogy. you realise the first game as a concluded story, that leaves room for a real sequel and from that point on, you stick to your masterplan. if me2s horrible main story and the me3 retcons were their masterplan, its a wonder they were funded. if this was the case, the realisation of the trilogy was beyond bad.

if you can not make a trilogy (because you do not have a second and third act), the sequel has to be an episode with a self contained story  - new threat, new antagonists, new theme (just like a star trek episode).


if they really planed to make a trilogy and constructed this stuff from the first day on, it is even worse.

[SwobyJ]

ElitePinecone wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

The first game was designed sort of like a pilot episode. If it continues, awesome. If it get cancelled, then at least ME1 works well enough by itself (but damn, we can't deal with those Reapers).

Do you have a source or a quote for that? Because sorry, but I haven't ever heard or read anything like that.

No. It's my gathering from everything I've seen from them since pre-2008, including (eventually) Final Hours.

They didn't even have the Reapers' motivations hashed out beyond possibilities they could go for. I mean really. lol

EDIT: I believe there's also something out there that highly suggests that Shepard himself was considered at some point to be just for 'ME1', but instead they slowed down the plot pace and decided for a trilogy for him.
Iterations upon iterations. Nothing new for for the industry, but as a trilogy, Mass Effect has had its (narrative) bumps.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 10 février 2014 - 09:43 .

[maaaad365]

dreamgazer wrote...

maaaad365 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

maaaad365 wrote...

Drew Karpyshyn's opinion should be consulted, he was the lead writer for ME 1 and 2 and there were no major complaints from the fans. 

False. Have you not read through the responses from the "hardcore fans" about the pointlessness of ME2's plot and the inanity of the Baby Reaper?

That's nothing compared to the ME3 ending. I didn't say that Drew was perfect, but he pleased most of the fans, including the majority of the hardcore players.

Eh, you're moving the goalposts.  You said that there were no major complaints, which there undoubtedly were: the science of Lazarus, the pointlessness of the Collector side-mission plot, the Cerberus railroading, "Ah yes, Reapers", Harbinger's schoolyard obsession, and that terrible Baby Reaper ending focused on the "essence of organics" were all heavily criticized.  And there were a healthy number of hardcore fans unhappy with the reduced presence of the VS and Liara in ME2. 

I can't believe there is even a comparison between the 2 story lines. It's like comparing Bill Clinton to Adolf Hitler. Sure, Bill Clinton had his faults and was contested by many, but he will never be even close to the evil of Adolf Hitler.  That's how I see it, ME3 was a fiasco, and I am sorry to say this to Bioware, I am sure they meant well, but it came out a disaster. ME2 was a masterpiece on so many levels and its minor plot holes were neglijable compared to ME3. In fact, ME3 contradicted the ME2 story-line , not the other way round.

Modifié par maaaad365, 10 février 2014 - 09:46 .

[SwobyJ]

ME3 as 'disaster' and ME2 as 'masterpiece' is a heck of a lot of hyperbole.

If anything were disasters, it was SWTOR (for a while), and DA2 (big time; enough to scrap the later DLC schedule).

ME3 was more of a bad incident, but still one that made Bioware the money they wanted, and eventually gave most players enough enjoyment to like the game.


EDIT: I know you're talking about storylines, but taking the ending out of the equation here, the vast majority of ME3's story worked well enough. 'Disaster' is something I'd reserve for actual, you know, disasters that cause the whole dev studio to be shuttered or something.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 10 février 2014 - 09:48 .

[dreamgazer]

maaaad365 wrote...

I can't believe there is even a comparison between the 2 story lines. It's like comparing Bill Clinton to Adolf Hitler.

Oh, for fuck's sake ...

ME2 was a masterpiece on so many levels and its minor plot holes were neglijable compared to ME3. In fact, ME3 contradicted the ME2 story-line , not the other way round.

I repeat: 

You said that there were no major complaints, which there undoubtedly were: the science of Lazarus, the pointlessness of the Collector side-mission plot, the Cerberus railroading, "Ah yes, Reapers", Harbinger's schoolyard obsession, and that terrible Baby Reaper ending focused on the "essence of organics" were all heavily criticized. And there were a healthy number of hardcore fans unhappy with the reduced presence of the VS and Liara in ME2.

That's a masterpiece to you? Sport, take them rose-tinted shades off, because it's killing your vision. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 10 février 2014 - 09:51 .

[maaaad365]

It's not just the ending, it's also about the main motive of the Reapers that was changed from ME2 ( stoping the dark energy decay of the universe using a human Reaper ) to stoping the "innevitable" conflict between organics and synthetics. The ending was half of the problem in my opinion. What followed next with the Extended Cut DLC proved that they messed up the story and that they were desperate to fix it.

I don't like bashing Bioware , so I won't say more about how much I hate ME3.

[AresKeith]

What am I reading?

[SwobyJ]

Dark Energy? The thing only hinted like 2-3 times tops in ME2? That's about the same amount that synthetic/organic conflict was.

The reality likely is that they didn't know for sure, so ME2 was written to have several possibilities, with Dark Energy just one of the top ones.

Nothing was 'changed'. Something was simply *decided*.

[Dr_Extrem]

SwobyJ wrote...

ME3 as 'disaster' and ME2 as 'masterpiece' is a heck of a lot of hyperbole.

If anything were disasters, it was SWTOR (for a while), and DA2 (big time; enough to scrap the later DLC schedule).

ME3 was more of a bad incident, but still one that made Bioware the money they wanted, and eventually gave most players enough enjoyment to like the game.

no ... me2 was the bad incident. i really like me2 - but thats because of the characters and the gameplay but the main plot (not even the sideplots) does nothing to support the overarching plot of the trilogy. in me2, the story of mass effect does not progress - we only get new enemies to shoot at and a lousy justification to do it.

me2 could have been a source of lore and possible motivations/goals of the reapers but mass effect 3 did not use it.

if me3 would have used the little me2 provided, it would have gentrified me2. but they threw what little was there out of the window and created something completely new. this strategy left me2 to be the bad incident and made me3 a fiasko (storywhise).

[maaaad365]

dreamgazer wrote...

maaaad365 wrote...

I can't believe there is even a comparison between the 2 story lines. It's like comparing Bill Clinton to Adolf Hitler.

Oh, for fuck's sake ...

ME2 was a masterpiece on so many levels and its minor plot holes were neglijable compared to ME3. In fact, ME3 contradicted the ME2 story-line , not the other way round.

I repeat: 

You said that there were no major complaints, which there undoubtedly were: the science of Lazarus, the pointlessness of the Collector side-mission plot, the Cerberus railroading, "Ah yes, Reapers", Harbinger's schoolyard obsession, and that terrible Baby Reaper ending focused on the "essence of organics" were all heavily criticized. And there were a healthy number of hardcore fans unhappy with the reduced presence of the VS and Liara in ME2.

That's a masterpiece to you? Sport, take them rose-tinted shades off, because it's killing your vision. 

It wasn't a masterpiece to you because you didn't understand what ME2 was about, you didn;t understand the Reaper motives in ME1 and 2, you are still looking through your ME3 glasses. The dark energy plot was soooooo much better than the neverending conflict between synthetics and organics.

[SwobyJ]

The main plot of ME2 was mediocre, at least on its face.
Obviously this is all our personal opinions (until someone butts in with 'this is my OBJECTIVE analysis!' haha), but whatever

~~~

I have a much more personal opinion and perception of ME2 that I keep in mind though. One that actually links ME2 and ME3 together in more ways than most think, and makes ME2 pretty damn crucial.

However, I'll need to see what the next game will be to know for sure.

[SwobyJ]

"We'll stop you from using Dark Energy by letting you use Dark Energy for millions of years"

[GreyLycanTrope]

maaaad365 wrote...
It wasn't a masterpiece to you because you didn't understand what ME2 was about, you didn;t understand the Reaper motives in ME1 and 2, you are still looking through your ME3 glasses. The dark energy plot was soooooo much better than the neverending conflict between synthetics and organics.

Wait, "you just didn't understand ME2"? Isn't that trademarked by the "you didn't understand ME3" people or something?

[Dr_Extrem]

maaaad365 wrote...

It's not just the ending, it's also about the main motive of the Reapers that was changed from ME2 ( stoping the dark energy decay of the universe using a human Reaper ) to stoping the "innevitable" conflict between organics and synthetics. The ending was half of the problem in my opinion. What followed next with the Extended Cut DLC proved that they messed up the story and that they were desperate to fix it.

I don't like bashing Bioware , so I won't say more about how much I hate ME3.

i dont want to rain on your parade but that was the post me2 plan for me3 (before drew left the team) ... where in the nine hells was this mention in me2? ... me2 did not really contribute to the overarching story of mass effect. it only placed hint here and there but we get no information on the reapers motives apart from "you have become an annoyance" and "you feel this".

we do not even know why they were gooifying humans in the first place .. there were hints scattered throughout the game but no explanation. we could only guess.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 10 février 2014 - 10:06 .