This reminds me.... did DA2 get the same grief for the fetch quests that ME3 did? Actually, the DA2 implementation is even cheaper, since much of the time there isn't even any ambient Kirkwall dialogue to go with them.
I don't know if it was the same grief, but yes, it got grief for it.
There isn't really a Cerberus retcon. In ME1 you went after the cells doing crazy things. In ME2 you learn about all kinds of crazy operations (Overlord, Praga) so they are still the same group. What you didn't see in ME1 was the not crazy part which makes total sense since the not crazy parts didn't demand your attention. Simple fact is that 2 actually gave some texture to Cerberus other than being mwahahahaha bad guys. You look at them and like any large organization (take American political parties) there isn't going to be full agreement among all elements, there will be crazy whackjobs, and the right hand and left hand won't always know what is going on.
In ME1 Cerberus was a Alliance black ops organization, gone more or less wrong, and then it got scrapped, with the actual story.
Cerberus is the symbol of the managing trainwreck that was the ME trilogy as a whole, Bioware said themselves that in ME1 they were a throwaway mercenary faction, then they got all that "not really bad guys" nonsense in ME2, to end up in ME3 exactly how they started ME1: "LOLEVILEVILEVIL".
If I went straight from ME1 to ME3, I would've though "yep, that's consistent".
Oh and talking of not thinking things, through, there was also the whole Geth "hey guys in fact all you saw was our evil twins, the real Geth are good guys :33"
Oh and talking of not thinking things, through, there was also the whole Geth "hey guys in fact all you saw was our evil twins, the real Geth are good guys :33"
Eh, that was one of the few things I did like to an extent
This is very hard question to answer. Based on what we've seen, I have no reason to think Inquisition will be bad. The gameplay looks great, the graphics look stunning, the music sounds amazing, and the Male Inquisitor has probably the best PC voice we've ever had in a Bioware game. The only thing that could potentially ruin this game for me, is the story, which we know very little about. It's very hard to imagine this game not turning out well.
Even so, I will probably enjoy this game regardless of its quality. I actually enjoyed Dragon Age II, but even I admit that it was lacking in quality. Even a bad Bioware game has replay value and is still better than most other games on the market.
In ME1 Cerberus was a Alliance black ops organization, gone more or less wrong, and then it got scrapped, with the actual story.
Cerberus is the symbol of the managing trainwreck that was the ME trilogy as a whole, Bioware said themselves that in ME1 they were a throwaway mercenary faction, then they got all that "not really bad guys" nonsense in ME2, to end up in ME3 exactly how they started ME1: "LOLEVILEVILEVIL".
If I went straight from ME1 to ME3, I would've though "yep, that's consistent".
Oh and talking of not thinking things, through, there was also the whole Geth "hey guys in fact all you saw was our evil twins, the real Geth are good guys :33"
What? Cerberus came off as bad guys even in ME2. TIM consantly monitored your every movement on the Normandy and was quite willing to put your team in unecessary danger for BS reasons. The quarian from the first planet, if given to Cerberus, isn't exactly in a good state afterwards. Jacks loyality mission shows that Cerberus experimented on children in truly abominable ways. Project overlord tries large scale mind control over Geth by practically torturing an auistic boy.
Oh and let's ot forget how at the end TIM reveals that he didn't even care that much about the missing colonists but instead his main goal always was to get his greedy little hands on the technology of the collector base.
Furthermore ME3 even explains that the Illusive man handpicked the most sympathetic and least "LOLEvil" members of cerberus to work on the Normandy SR2 in order to make Cerberus look better than it actually was.
Eh, that was one of the few things I did like to an extent
It wasn't that bad, but it came after the inferred holocaust of the Morning war in ME1, I'm not against the "two Geth factions" thing, but it's too important fir the whole setting for to just be discovered late in ME2.
What? Cerberus came off as bad guys even in ME2. TIM consantly monitored your every movement on the Normandy and was quite willing to put your team in unecessary danger for BS reasons.
It wasn't beyond what a Renegade Shepard it capable to be "sometimes a thousand must die so a million can live", and I hate to say it myself, but the gambles of TIM did paid of (before ME3 that is).
Jacks loyality mission shows that Cerberus experimented on children in truly abominable ways. Project overlord tries large scale mind control over Geth by practically torturing an auistic boy.
In Jack's loyalty, it is explicitly stated that TIM is not aware of what's going on in Pragia, and the same in Overlord, he knew they were studiying Geth, but nobody except Archer knew what David had become.
ME2 specializes itself in clouding Cerberus's image with ambiguity, it's not a complete heel face turn, but they sure weren't as mindlessly evil as in ME1.
Bioware should've picked one side for Cerberus and stuck with it, they didn't and now it's all over the place.
Furthermore ME3 even explains that the Illusive man handpicked the most sympathetic and least "LOLEvil" members of cerberus to work on the Normandy SR2 in order to make Cerberus look better than it actually was.
That was ME3's treatment of Cerberus, not ME2's
BG2 had the whole Irenicus trying to steal your soul and become a god thing. Rescue your sister, defeat the evil mage and his vampire sister-henchman. That sort of thing. You recruit followers and many of them have personal missions, but that's entirely optional. Side missions are just that: side-missions
[quote]ME2 was supposedly about building a team to stop the Collectors. But almost the entire game was about recruitment and solving their personal issues. Almost none of it was about the Collectors. And there is no teambuilding to speak of. No conversations, no training to work as a unit. Just recruit, solve personal problem. Repeat. The only effective difference between recruiting the regular squad and the DLC squad was the lack of a recruitment mission.
And ME2 had the whole Collectors thing. Most of BG2 isn't about Irenicus in exactly the same way that most of ME2 isn't about the Collectors. You recruit followers in both games, and some of them have optional missions; BG2 has a lot of big optional missions that aren't tied to NPCs, but I don't think that's too relevant. The difference is that in ME2 the followers' missions are integrated into the plot due to the SM loyalty mechanic rather than being utterly irrelevant to it. How is this a point against ME2, again? Are you arguing that the ME2 missions should have been even less integrated with the main plot than they are, or that they should have been more integrated?( I get that you're not a fan of the loyalty mechanism, of course.)
1.It wasn't beyond what a Renegade Shepard it capable to be "sometimes a thousand must die so a million can live", and I hate to say it myself, but the gambles of TIM did paid of (before ME3 that is).
2.In Jack's loyalty, it is explicitly stated that TIM is not aware of what's going on in Pragia, and the same in Overlord, he knew they were studiying Geth, but nobody except Archer knew what David had become.
3.ME2 specializes itself in clouding Cerberus's image with ambiguity, it's not a complete heel face turn, but they sure weren't as mindlessly evil as in ME1.
Bioware should've picked one side for Cerberus and stuck with it, they didn't and now it's all over the place.
4.That was ME3's treatment of Cerberus, not ME2's
1.To be fair renegade Shepard does come of like a evil douchebag as well from time to time. Also Cerberus still has that mentality in ME3. They are still sacrificing thousands of people in order to come up with a plan to stop the reapers (by controling them.)
2.If I remember correctly TIM was the one actively pressing Archer for more progress, which made Archer strap David in the torture machine. And if you send him to Grissom academy TIM is upset and states that David is invaluable to his experiments. On Pragia it is also stated that TIM would be statisfied if they suceeded and then wouldn't care about their means any longer.
3. Cerberus actions in ME2 ranged from ambigious to outright evil. In no way was Cerberus ever presented as Good guys. Only as necessary evil. In addition you never knew what Cerberus was planning with those husks and Rachni in ME1. They might have some elaborate plan with them that wasn't mindlessly evil. You just never talked with them and decided to shoot everything up instead 
.
4. Fair point.
In my Opinion Cerberus isn't really that inconsistent throughout the Trilogy. Slightly? Maybe. Totally inconsistent? I don't think so.
And ME2 had the whole Collectors thing. Most of BG2 isn't about Irenicus in exactly the same way that most of ME2 isn't about the Collectors. You recruit followers in both games, and some of them have optional missions; BG2 has a lot of big optional missions that aren't tied to NPCs, but I don't think that's too relevant. The difference is that in ME2 the followers' missions are integrated into the plot due to the SM loyalty mechanic rather than being utterly irrelevant to it. How is this a point against ME2, again? Are you arguing that the ME2 missions should have been even less integrated with the main plot than they are, or that they should have been more integrated?( I get that you're not a fan of the loyalty mechanism, of course.)
I really don't want to get into this here, as it's pretty OT, but ME2 really wasn't about the Collectors. It was about recruiting your squad and doing their loyalty missions. The Collectors were pretty much the Maguffin used as an excuse to meet all these people. Even the loyalty missions really had nothing to do with the Collectors or the mission in general. It was just personal stuff for them to take care of, and you were rewarded with Plot Armor for doing them.
BG2 actually gave you a reason to go around hero-ing. You were raising money to break into Spellhold. What what you did to raise that money didn't matter. D'Arnise Stronghold. Windspear Hills. Trademeet. The Slave Lords. Do any, do all, find other jobs. Eventually you get your Plot Coupon and find your way to Spellhold and the main plot really takes off.
In a way, it's not unlike Act 1 of DA2. And perhaps, hopefully, DAI.
I really don't want to get into this here, as it's pretty OT, but ME2 really wasn't about the Collectors. It was about recruiting your squad and doing their loyalty missions. The Collectors were pretty much the Maguffin used as an excuse to meet all these people. Even the loyalty missions really had nothing to do with the Collectors or the mission in general. It was just personal stuff for them to take care of, and you were rewarded with Plot Armor for doing them.
BG2 actually gave you a reason to go around hero-ing. You were raising money to break into Spellhold. What what you did to raise that money didn't matter. D'Arnise Stronghold. Windspear Hills. Trademeet. The Slave Lords. Do any, do all, find other jobs. Eventually you get your Plot Coupon and find your way to Spellhold and the main plot really takes off.
By "actually gave you a reason," do you maybe mean something more along the lines of "I don't like the loyalty mechanic, so therefore it doesn't exist"? As written this is nonsense, since loyalty is useful and known to be so. Is this one of those threads where you're talking about how stuff feels by mis-stating facts?
You're doing ME missions for loyalty, and BG2 missions for cash. The only difference is that you theoretically can enter the SM with no loyalty missions completed if you run out the timers with N7 missions. Although it might be theoretically possible to see all the equipment from Chateau Irenicus and get to Spellhold without actually doing any missions in BG2.
I'm also unclear how you're defining what games are "about." You don't seem to be applying this in any coherent fashion.
::sigh:: I'm going to regret this, but one more time:
The loyalty missions had nothing to do with team-building, which was in theory what ME2 was about. Instead it was about dealing with individual personal issues. I fail to see how this had anything to do with the Collectors or getting people to work together as a cohesive unit. The loyalty mechanic as a concept is fine. But I fail to see how doing one's loyalty mission magically makes them "play well with others" or grants plot armor that lets them survive falling debris.
In BG2, you're simply after cash, as you said. You're trying to get the wheels moving to go after Irenicus and/or rescue Imoen. You gain a tangible reward that makes sense. Make money, hand over money to organization that will get you to Spellhold.
To drag this kicking an screaming back to the topic at hand, I'm hoping that DAI's resources and power base are not so nebulous as ME2's loyalty system: Finding Empress Celene's lost cat allowing her to survive an assassination attempt would be too silly for words.
My approach to this game is very much firmly wait and see. This time around i won't be buying the game on the very day it is released, i'm going to wait to hear some feed back on it. Of interest to me is whether the new PC wil get mysteriously disappeared at the end as i'm not keen on a recycled ending
If Inquisition ends up becoming Dragon Age's "Mass Effect 3", what will you do? Will you still have faith in Bioware?
I'm not asserting it'll be good or it won't be good, just curious.
As for myself, if DA:I flops as badly as ME3 did, I think by then I'd lose hope in Bioware's future installments.
That would depend on why it flops, wouldn't it? If DAI fails for different reasons, then it could mean a variety of things, whether it is under-compensation, over-compensation, new experimentation, or just plain player whimsy about what constitutes a flaw at the moment or not.
When we take a critical look at ME3, anyone should be able to concede that there are a good number things it did not just passable, but even better than the previous games. It wasn't simply a total failure on all grounds, and treating it as if it were would be detrimental to actually using it as a lesson for good games. Especially if we don't identify what the exceptional flaws are: for all that ME3 gets blasted for fetch-quests as its primary means of sidequest, few people making those claims keep in mind that ME1 and ME2 had the same sort of find-and-grind exploration, and that they no more were the entireity of it than ME3's fetch quests.
If DAI failed on the grounds of trying to pull off a trilogy-ending crescendo like ME3 and putting such extreme downsides to all potential ending choices- then sure, I could see losing some faith in Bioware for not learning that lesson. But there's little reason to believe that scenario is even plausible: DAI isn't the capstone to a trilogy, the DA franchise isn't building multiple games around the same characters, the regional focuses of the games has (so far) limited the effects of even the most influential of choices. DAI is unlikely to be built around resolving the series, or even the mage-templar issue, so a lot of the buildup and hype on that will missing. You'll still get people who overhype it for their pet cause, but the devs certainly haven't.
On the other hand, if you feel the true failing of ME3 was that the protagonist died in most routes, and was ambiguous in another- well, that remains to be seen. Same with 'personal betrayal of an ally' (which DAO pulled off as a merit rather than a failure). As much as a sticking point such things can be for some, it wasn't for others, and it doesn't stop being a legitimate storytelling technique even if someone doesn't like it. I doubt they'll try to pull off the ME3 cocktail of contentions at the same point, but then they didn't exactly intend or anticipate how those would go down either. No one does. Trying to move away from that doesn't mean success.
So I expect Bioware to once again deliver a mixed bag of various strengths and weaknesses. If the weaknesses are static and the same, then a challenge to faith might be justified. But if the weaknesses and things I don't enjoy are different from the previous issues, as a result of compensation or experimentation, then no: I can forgive overcompensation as it reflects a recognition and attempt to correct a perceived fault, and I can forgive experimentation because it is a sign of attempting self-improvement. Both of these efforts are why I have faith in Bioware, despite the occassional plots that fall through for me.
What Dean said.
Anyway, I have to say that I quite enjoyed ME3 with the EC dlc. It is one of the better games I have played, overall. I hated Skyrim for it's flimsy story, same three voice actors and repetitive dungeons. BUT, I wouldn't call it a failure as it sold an awful lot and many people love it.
Hell, I am replaying through DA2 right now and I dig it. I can see all the criticism it had and understand it. But it is still fun and better than many games I have played. I expect Inquisition to be better in all the areas that were criticized in DA2 and I also expect it to have it's own, unique issues that people will gripe about. But, it will also end up having some of the most memorable characters and be a typical Bioware game.
Guest_Rubios_*
Mass Effect 3 is a great game so I'd be pretty satisfied and eager to play Dragon Age IV.
1: Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game. The fact that people think it's one of the worst games ever simply because of the ending is absolutely mind-boggling.
2: There's less than a 1% chance that Inquisition will be bad, based on what we've seen. It will definitely top Origins, of that I have absolutely no doubt.
But, if for some reason it isn't good, I guess I'll eat some bacon off one of the flying pigs outside.
But, in all seriousness, if it isn't good, I'll probably lose faith in the Dragon Age series (which has not happened for me yet, as I have enjoyed both DA:O and DA2). But something tells me bioware has learned from the many mistakes of DA2, because they actually listen to us.
1: Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game. The fact that people think it's one of the worst games ever simply because of the ending is absolutely mind-boggling.
2: There's less than a 1% chance that Inquisition will be bad, based on what we've seen. It will definitely top Origins, of that I have absolutely no doubt.
But, if for some reason it isn't good, I guess I'll eat some bacon off one of the flying pigs outside.
But, in all seriousness, if it isn't good, I'll probably lose faith in the Dragon Age series (which has not happened for me yet, as I have enjoyed both DA:O and DA2). But something tells me bioware has learned from the many mistakes of DA2, because they actually listen to us.
Mass effect 3 had a lot of holes, but it was a good game. The real reason I found ME3 concerning, regarding future installments, is that the player response was such a surprise to them. If they're telling the truth about being surprised in ME3's reception, then their success thus far has been luck. That doesn't bode well for future games.
1: Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game. The fact that people think it's one of the worst games ever simply because of the ending is absolutely mind-boggling.
2: There's less than a 1% chance that Inquisition will be bad, based on what we've seen. It will definitely top Origins, of that I have absolutely no doubt.
But, if for some reason it isn't good, I guess I'll eat some bacon off one of the flying pigs outside.
But, in all seriousness, if it isn't good, I'll probably lose faith in the Dragon Age series (which has not happened for me yet, as I have enjoyed both DA:O and DA2). But something tells me bioware has learned from the many mistakes of DA2, because they actually listen to us.
I think literally the sole reason so many people hated the endings was because of the problem I think any trilogy / continuing series can suffer from, a lot of people probably had an ideal / perfect ending in their head for the ME trilogy and when it wasn't met, the outcry began, though of course the way the ending was done did not help things, especially since most people literally saw it as, do you pick red, green or blue?
I loved all of ME3 (granted it had plenty of plot holes), except the ending, as it did leave a very sour taste in my mouth, but I didn't let it cloud my vision of the everything that came before it, as I thoroughly enjoyed it, I would I have loved the Earth segment to have been longer but oh well.
The Citadel DLC for me was the perfect end to all it 
_______________________________
And as for Inquisition, from everything i've seen so far, it is ticking all the boxes for me, It might sound strange to people and I may just come across as a hopelessly devoted fanboy / extremely stubborn, But even if Inquisition doesn't tick every box, I won't just suddenly lose all faith in Bioware, just seems very immature to do so, least to me anyway. Though truthfully my list of demands of what I like an RPG to be isn't that extensive xD
1: Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game. The fact that people think it's one of the worst games ever simply because of the ending is absolutely mind-boggling.
Mass Effect 3 had alot of other problems other than the ending, I can totally understand why some people would say it is crap, to me apart from the ending which quite possibly has to be the worst ending to any game in the history of gaming, the game was just one giant meh.
Hmm, tough topic. Mass Effect still leaves a bitter taste. The third part wass like the expected but unwanted end of a good friendship. And just when this friend leaves your house for good (in peace, no evil thoughts on either side), he decides to take a dump on your doorstep. Sure, I can live with that. But I will never again trust that person to act normal.
So, if Inquisition is bad. Well, I won't buy it. And no, I can't make that mistake because I won't pre-order it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I could have overlooked the broken mechanics of ME3, or the way they decided to make it look even worse than ME2 (or any other Unreal 3 game I have ever seen). I could have overlooked the "consolisation" of the game. I could have done that, because Mass Effect was a cinematic experience that got its value from the story it told and the way how it did. That's why the completely broken combat system in the first game was absolutely okay.
But no amount of "goodies" will make me pe-order a BioWare game again. What good are these things, if the game they belong to is something I don't want to be reminded of? So when Inquisition comes out I will wait for real, uncensored gameplay. For impressions, not scores. No decimal numbers, no metacritic, no big gaming sites. Just plain and simple impressions and gameplay.
P.S.: The last time I broke that rule was Star Citizen. Because of the magic of the name "Chris Roberts" (and because of laserguns in space). Right now I'm heavily doubting if that was a wise decision. A title that "will" survive because of its multiplayer with a community that right now lets the BSN during its worst times look like an angel...
P.P.S.: @Giga Drill BREAKER: I hope you never played Deus Ex 2. Or, as a newer title, Guise of the Wolf. That's when you know that something went terribly wrong even before the actual development of the game started.
I will cry myself to sleep the night after release
If DAI is the series' ME3 then I would still have faith in them, because I absolutely loved Mass Effect 3. Did I love the ending? Nah, but the meat of the game was fantastic. I was also admittedly addicted to the multiplayer for months so... yeah.
If anything ME3 gives me hope for DAI. And ultimately, if the game isn't good then well... that's that. But I'm really expecting it to be very enjoyable.
If Inquisition ends up becoming Dragon Age's "Mass Effect 3", what will you do? Will you still have faith in Bioware?
I'll still have some faith in Bioware, but I'll be more cautious with my purchases. For instance, I pre-ordered DA2. I will not be pre-ordering Inquisition, nor will I be buying it during the first week of release (at least). If DAI gets poor or mediocre reviews from my DA friends I expect I'll wait until it goes on special before buying it.
I'll make better informed buying decisions after that, as I do with any poor game release.
Retour en haut