1638 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Double post...


That's a first.

[KaiserShep]

There should've been even more death....

Maybe the Normandy should have been destroyed no matter what and London is glassed entirely, and the entirety of the allied fleets are left as debris. When you pick destroy, the citadel and relays explode, wiping out each system they're in. Just for good measure, destroy doesn't kill all of the reapers, and they continue to mop up whatever's left.

[wolfhowwl]

The good news is that your entire surviving ME2 and ME3 parties join you for the final charge to the beam.

 

The bad news is they all get blown to bits down to the last man.

 

Hey at least this fixes the teleporting squadmates/Normandy Evacuation problem.

[KaiserShep]

It sounds about as satisfying as diluted PBR.

[Mcfly616]

Maybe the Normandy should have been destroyed no matter what and London is glassed entirely, and the entirety of the allied fleets are left as debris. When you pick destroy, the citadel and relays explode, wiping out each system they're in. Just for good measure, destroy doesn't kill all of the reapers, and they continue to mop up whatever's left.

I wasn't being sarcastic.


And by more death, I meant individual character death scenes. I think they handled the large scale (species) ramifications fine. Individuals however, not so much. For instance, I think some squadmates should've died during Priority Earth, regardless of how High your EMS is. I just feel that being able to save every squadmate is a bit too clean for me. Casualties should've been unavoidable.

[KaiserShep]

That seems like something that can easily be botched pretty badly. It could look arbitrary and meaningless and just a way to give the player a death-outa-nowhere in a cheap attempt to engage our emotions. If companions are going to die, it should be more relevant to a major plot point if not by any choice of the player, or else it will not really have a positive effect on the game. It really begs the question as to which squad mate should buy it and why. Would it be the least popular? The most? It just seems like death for death's sake.

[DeinonSlayer]

I wasn't being sarcastic.


And by more death, I meant individual character death scenes. I think they handled the large scale (species) ramifications fine. Individuals however, not so much. For instance, I think some squadmates should've died during Priority Earth, regardless of how High your EMS is. I just feel that being able to save every squadmate is a bit too clean for me. Casualties should've been unavoidable.

People had fun gaming the Suicide Mission's squadmate death dynamics and I'm sure they'd do the same here, but I suspect a lot of other people (including, yes, pure-paragons who are used to Pavlovian rewards) would resent that a "perfect outcome" was unattainable. Plus it's entirely possible to only have three squadmates alive to start out with - kind of throws a wrench in things.

 

I thought the "Renegade Reinterpretations" suicide mission was interesting. You will lose no less than four people, but always in context. For instance, the tech specialist you send into the tubes will find it welded shut on the far end - their death is unavoidable - but if you chose the right specialist, they'll get the door open for you fast enough to prevent a second squadmate from being killed. Instead of "No One Left Behind," the achievement was "Minimal Losses."

[Jorji Costava]

People had fun gaming the Suicide Mission's squadmate death dynamics and I'm sure they'd do the same here, but I suspect a lot of other people (including, yes, pure-paragons who are used to Pavlovian rewards) would resent that a "perfect outcome" was unattainable. Plus it's entirely possible to only have three squadmates alive to start out with - kind of throws a wrench in things.

 

I thought the "Renegade Reinterpretations" suicide mission was interesting. You will lose no less than four people, but always in context. For instance, the tech specialist you send into the tubes will find it welded shut on the far end - their death is unavoidable - but if you chose the right specialist, they'll get the door open for you fast enough to prevent a second squadmate from being killed. Instead of "No One Left Behind," the achievement was "Minimal Losses."

 

Another possibility for the suicide mission would have been to set things up so that there would be actual gameplay or story benefits to losing squad mates (something like the Kirrahe decision on Virmire). For instance, assign squad mates X and Y to be a part of a distraction team; X and Y will certainly be killed, but if you don't set up a distraction team, then things get much harder for you in gameplay terms during the mission. Or, assign squad mate Z to accomplish some objective; doing this kills squadmate Z, but if the objective is left undone, there are repercussions down the line.

 

If the idea is that war requires sacrifice and forces you to choose between conscience and expediency, then that seems like a way to illustrate that idea. At the same time, it makes squad mate deaths something other than just a purely suboptimal state, thereby encouraging more people to see how ME3 would unfold without many of the ME2 squadmates: You can save everyone if you want to, but you also miss out on stuff if you do.

[Mcfly616]

People had fun gaming the Suicide Mission's squadmate death dynamics and I'm sure they'd do the same here, but I suspect a lot of other people (including, yes, pure-paragons who are used to Pavlovian rewards) would resent that a "perfect outcome" was unattainable. Plus it's entirely possible to only have three squadmates alive to start out with - kind of throws a wrench in things.

quite a stupid thing to resent. But whatever. It's their life.


Anyways, I hope they stick to self-contained standalone stories from now on. Not another Trilogy. A self-contained story allows the narrative to branch more drastically and choices to make a more significant impact. Creativity thrives.

[KaiserShep]

I agree about self contained stories. It makes things much simpler for any subsequent titles.

[von uber]

I agree about self contained stories. It makes things much simpler for any subsequent titles.

 

I disagree TBH, I liked the import and continuation of the character aspect.

[KaiserShep]

I disagree TBH, I liked the import and continuation of the character aspect.

 

I actually liked that too, but I think that if they actually do this again for whatever the new Mass Effect is about, we don't have to deal with huge galaxy-shaking events that could make certain events underwhelming. I'd hate to see a repeat of something like how the rachni were handled, for example.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Why does it have to be either stories contained to a single game or trilogies? Why can't there be a compromise in the form of a dualogy (I think that is what is it called, pardon my English)? The first game sets up the story and a few, but vital decisions, the second game would then be about the consequence of those decisions while wrapping up the narrative. I could imagine that being far easier to control than a trilogy.

[Iakus]

I disagree TBH, I liked the import and continuation of the character aspect.

 

I liked the concept at first.  But having to hit the reset button with every game, and watching supposedly big choices get trivialized over and over again has killed it for me.

[KaiserShep]

Why does it have to be either stories contained to a single game or trilogies? Why can't there be a compromise in the form of a dualogy (I think that is what is it called, pardon my English)? The first game sets up the story and a few, but vital decisions, the second game would then be about the consequence of those decisions while wrapping up the narrative. I could imagine that being far easier to control than a trilogy.

 

That's a fair point. I think there's a sort of love affair with the three part epic, but a duology might actually work better.

[SporkFu]

People had fun gaming the Suicide Mission's squadmate death dynamics and I'm sure they'd do the same here, but I suspect a lot of other people (including, yes, pure-paragons who are used to Pavlovian rewards) would resent that a "perfect outcome" was unattainable. Plus it's entirely possible to only have three squadmates alive to start out with - kind of throws a wrench in things.

 

I thought the "Renegade Reinterpretations" suicide mission was interesting. You will lose no less than four people, but always in context. For instance, the tech specialist you send into the tubes will find it welded shut on the far end - their death is unavoidable - but if you chose the right specialist, they'll get the door open for you fast enough to prevent a second squadmate from being killed. Instead of "No One Left Behind," the achievement was "Minimal Losses."

I dunno, I mostly play a pure-paragon shep. I try out other ways to play shep just to try them but mostly I like being the by-the-book hero. Having said that, if I don't get a perfect outcome I'm okay with it. The emotional impact of characters I've grown attached to dying is part of the enjoyment, if you know what I mean. The thing is to make those deaths mean something. Ashley/Kaidan is a perfect example. First time I played ME1 I was all, "no way! I had time to save both dammit. Grrrr," and then I kept playing.  

[SwobyJ]

Why does it have to be either stories contained to a single game or trilogies? Why can't there be a compromise in the form of a dualogy (I think that is what is it called, pardon my English)? The first game sets up the story and a few, but vital decisions, the second game would then be about the consequence of those decisions while wrapping up the narrative. I could imagine that being far easier to control than a trilogy.

 

I strongly support a duology.
 
ME1
ME2
ME3
 
Mass4 (with some reference to ME1-3, but largely separate in itself)
Mass5 (more fully independent to ME1-3, but connection to Mass4, while still being more standalone than with ME trilogy titles; like new protagonist instead of 2 games with one)
 
Mass6 (fully independent to ME1-Mass5, but optional connection to it)

[SporkFu]

Now that shep's story is over, I could behind the next batch of ME games, however many there are, being more like the DA games. Depends on how attached I get to the characters in the first new game and whether their appearances in future games are limited to cameos.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

I strongly support a duology.
 
ME1
ME2
ME3
 
Mass4 (with some reference to ME1-3, but largely separate in itself)
Mass5 (more fully independent to ME1-3, but connection to Mass4, while still being more standalone than with ME trilogy titles; like new protagonist instead of 2 games with one)
 
Mass6 (fully independent to ME1-Mass5, but optional connection to it)

 

I must admit I think I can get behind a duology. For one, I don't think it's been done too often (I can't think of any games myself). And it will still allow for lots of content for a single story while somewhat simplifying the branching problems. Perhaps have the first game onyl branch slightly but introduce the characters while having the second installment conclude the story.

[SwobyJ]

Yep exactly.

 

Have them tie more than Dragon Age games so far, okay. But not as much as the Mass Effect trilogy does.

 

Though you might have read my crazy theories.

 

In my (I guess) headcanon, it would go something like:

Mass4 - Play as new Reaperish Entity exploring outcome of Shepard Incident

Mass5 - Play as multiple species in a wider galaxy story

 

Or vice versa. Mass4 we play as multiple species, but in a journey to uncover what happened to Shepard (at least as a bigger side plot), then ME5 we play as that man/woman.

In any case, both would focus more on exploration and conflict, than war and resistance. Not be tied down to *having to* account for choices, but still having options and results.

 

Even outside my theories, I think I'd still like this model.

Mass4 - Refer to Trilogy, but not be connected to it.

Mass5 - Acknowledge Trilogy, but refer more to Mass4, and only be somewhat connected to it.

[Han Shot First]

I wasn't being sarcastic.


And by more death, I meant individual character death scenes. I think they handled the large scale (species) ramifications fine. Individuals however, not so much. For instance, I think some squadmates should've died during Priority Earth, regardless of how High your EMS is. I just feel that being able to save every squadmate is a bit too clean for me. Casualties should've been unavoidable.

 

I'm in agreement, at least as far as squadmate deaths go.

 

In my opinion one of the larger mistakes Bioware made with its endings was in having the bitter portion of a bittersweet ending come from galactic civilization collapsing. I think that had a large part do with many players coming away from the original endings feeling like their Shepard hadn't truly won. I think the original endings would have worked better if Shepard instead saves the galactic civilization players had grown attached to over the course of five years and three games, but a couple of the squadmates died in the end run. The bitter portion of the bittersweet ending should have been from casualties amongst the Normandy crew, with the payoff being saving galactic civilization.

 

Of course there were other problems with the endings beyond just that, but I think that was one of the biggest problems with it.

 

If it were up to me the end run would have been all hands on deck (all surviving ME1 through ME3 squad mates) in a ME2 style suicide mission, where some casualties were unavoidable, like Virmire.

[Mcfly616]

If it were up to me the end run would have been all hands on deck (all surviving ME1 through ME3 squad mates) in a ME2 style suicide mission, where some casualties were unavoidable, like Virmire.

that's what I was expecting (not just hoping for). I expected a twist and I expected the unexpected....but I also was expecting them to build upon the foundation that the Suicide Mission was. I thought they would make it more elaborate. Commanding all squadmates and major military assets in the final push.


Funny thing is, there were numerous reasons I hated the original ending, but the main reason was that I didn't know what impact I had on the galaxy. I cared about the 'big' picture. I'm happy with the EC because they showed it. However, a good amount of the BSN swears that Mass Effect was about the characters and couldn't really care less if the galaxy was in ashes just as long as their favorites lived.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

The answer to to question asked in the OP is twofold:

1) Yes, I still do hate the so called "Mass Effect 3" - the retcons, the ending, and then the artistic integrity excuses, the PR that we all got from BioWare - this will never go away, there's no going back from that. And I maintain I will never buy another BioWare product again.

2) No, because, in the immortal words of MrBTongue, story elements "based on a contrivance have no narrative legitimacy. [We] are free to ignore them and substitute our own events in their place - and [our] versiin is every bit as valid as the <official> one, if not more so". Which means that Mass Effect 3 does not exist. It has literally never been made, and the story of ME1 and ME2 remains to be finished.

Because Shepard will never die.

Because it is late 2185. Batarian fleets gather as we speak and the danger of war between the Hegemony and the Systems Alliance seems to be more real than ever after the destruction of Bahak system and the death of its 100 000 inhabitants. The Alliance is doing everything in its power to alleviate the tension between the two races, but the confrontation seems to be a matter of time.

Although some consider the seemingly inevitable conflict as an opportunity to expand Alliance influence in the Skyllian Verge, there are those who know all too well there could be no worse time to engage in a long and costly war - not with another, much more dangerous threat lurking right at the edge of the Galaxy...

And there's more. There are Spectres dispatched to batarian space. There is the mysterious dreadnought found by the batarians on the planet Jartar. There is the notorious volus millionaire Kumun Shol and his army of mercenaries. There is the Shadow Broker, who has unexpectedly approached several key intelligence and military factions with startling information. There is Lorik Qu'inn. There is Kahlee Sanders. There is the quarian ship Idenna and her captain, who's voiced by Nathan Fillion. There is Kal'Reegar, who really thinks it's time for some thrilling heroics. There are, of course, geth. And they have a Dyson Sphere, or at least something to which a Dyson Sphere is the closest analogue we have. There is James Sanders (who is and isn't James Vega - at the same time, it's a bit complicated).

There are Shepard's friends. There are his enemies as well.

There is mystery. There's drama. There is lighthearted adventure. And there is war.

But Shepard is going to win it. And he's going to do it without sacrificing the soul of our species.

And I know - I just know - it's going to be amazing.

[Farangbaa]

The answer to to question asked in the OP is twofold:

1) Yes, I still do hate the so called "Mass Effect 3" - the retcons, the ending, and then the artistic integrity excuses, the PR that we all got from BioWare - this will never go away, there's no going back from that. And I maintain I will never buy another BioWare product again.

2) No, because, in the immortal words of MrBTongue, story elements "based on a contrivance have no narrative legitimacy. [We] are free to ignore them and substitute our own events in their place - and [our] versiin is every bit as valid as the <official> one, if not more so". Which means that Mass Effect 3 does not exist. It has literally never been made, and the story of ME1 and ME2 remains to be finished.

Because Shepard will never die.

Because it is late 2185. Batarian fleets gather as we speak and the danger of war between the Hegemony and the Systems Alliance seems to be more real than ever after the destruction of Bahak system and the death of its 100 000 inhabitants. The Alliance is doing everything in its power to alleviate the tension between the two races, but the confrontation seems to be a matter of time.

Although some consider the seemingly inevitable conflict as an opportunity to expand Alliance influence in the Skyllian Verge, there are those who know all too well there could be no worse time to engage in a long and costly war - not with another, much more dangerous threat lurking right at the edge of the Galaxy...

And there's more. There are Spectres dispatched to batarian space. There is the mysterious dreadnought found by the batarians on the planet Jartar. There is the notorious volus millionaire Kumun Shol and his army of mercenaries. There is the Shadow Broker, who has unexpectedly approached several key intelligence and military factions with startling information. There is Lorik Qu'inn. There is Kahlee Sanders. There is the quarian ship Idenna and her captain, who's voiced by Nathan Fillion. There is Kal'Reegar, who really thinks it's time for some thrilling heroics. There are, of course, geth. And they have a Dyson Sphere, or at least something to which a Dyson Sphere is the closest analogue we have. There is James Sanders (who is and isn't James Vega - at the same time, it's a bit complicated).

There are Shepard's friends. There are his enemies as well.

There is mystery. There's drama. There is lighthearted adventure. And there is war.

But Shepard is going to win it. And he's going to do it without sacrificing the soul of our species.

And I know - I just know - it's going to be amazing.

 

Get help.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Get help.

That's the plan. The galaxy isn't going to save itself.