120 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

ME3 did a better job with the morality/reputation system, thankfully, but yeah, I'm in favor of abandoning the color-coded personality guides. 

[Mcfly616]

I think we can safely conclude here ME2 should have been a different game.

 the sad thing is realizing this on your first playthrough of the game...

 

 

(way before ME3 was ever in development)

[Mcfly616]

ME3 did a better job with the morality/reputation system, thankfully, but yeah, I'm in favor of abandoning the color-coded personality guides. 

 I'm not in favor of getting rid of the system completely (though it could use a more drastic overall). However, I'm definitely in favor getting rid of the color coded text. Too much hand holding. Let us interpret it our own way instead of how BW portrays it.

[KaiserShep]

Sorry, I meant to say almost nothing to do with ME1 and ME3. In any case you know what I mean, ME2 doesn't really further the Reaper invasion storyline all that much, heck the Reaper involvement with the Collectors doesn't even become apparent until near the end of the game.

To be fair, Harbinger outright tells you at the end of the suicide mission that "you've changed nothing". He wasn't blowing smoke lol.

[Iakus]

I can't remember which ME developer said this but one of the said that they learnt from the reactions to ME3's ending that there is a big difference to watching a film/TV show with a bittersweet ending and then having a ( supposedly interactive ) a game series where the gamer has invested 100's of hours of gameplay with a bittersweet ending. It is sliding scale or a moving target as you said. Maybe Shepard's death would have been better accepted if he had a chance to say good bye to his crew and it felt like a accomplished more at the end of the day. At the end of ME3 I felt like I had failed and my consolation prise was that I got to pick 1 of 3 terrible choices that I did not feel comfortable with and I went with he one that made me less sick to my stomach.

I believe it was Dusty Everman from this interview

 

Everman says the experience has underlined what's at stake when you're working with an interactive medium. "It shows how invested a player is in the story, and how much they care about the outcomes. I've learned that a bitter-sweet ending is much easier to watch in a movie, than experience in a long RPG where the player is very invested in the protagonist."

[Mcfly616]

Just because video games are an interactive medium doesn't mean there shouldn't be bittersweet endings.

[KaiserShep]

I guess the issue is one of balance. I don't think Mass Effect 3's ending quite hits the right mark, because it's also a bit too anticlimactic. It honestly feels like how the Matrix Revolutions ended, only the one making this "deal" doesn't necessarily die.

[Mcfly616]

Meh....I don't see any resemblance between the two. But 'perspectives' and all that....

[KaiserShep]

Shepard's encounter with the catalyst seemed pretty similar to Neo's encounter with the deus ex machina at 01 to me. In the end, the war was a hopeless battle with the machines, and the only real difference to me was that humanity was forced to coexist with the synthetics indefinitely in the latter.

[Rithmerdui]

You make good points Raizo.

Dale

Spoiler

In ME3 the Reaper theme was overshadowed by synthetic vs organic conflict.
However a few points.

• As for the Reapers motivations, they do quite have a god complex (Sovereign points that out very well). Like the Leviathans themselves. They practically were too arrogant to think they could be defeated and that was their downfall. The Reapers also believe(d) themselves invincible.
• As for the Catalyst, it was created by Leviathan to solve synthetic and organic chaos. Their mistake was to not put any restraints (AI shackles) on it because they probably didnt want to limit its programming. They actually gave an ArteficiaI intelligence too much freedom - in order for it to think for itself to find a solution. If they did a failsafe and tried to use it the AI could probably counteract the attempt since it can modify and reprogram (or destroy the failsafe beforehand altogheter).
• As for the Catalyst bringing down the Leviathan, did it create this "synthetic army" behind their backs? They probably were aware but decided not to act on it but once again - "Nothing can harm" them or so they thought. They were the supreme and thought themselves "divine".

[Mcfly616]

Whether you see the Catalyst as a Deus Ex doesn't make it in any way like the one seen in the third Matrix. Between the fact that they (human's and machines) were both forced to accept peace in the Matrix is nothing like Mass Effect.  Not to mention, I feel like people forget how bloody awful and ridiculous that final fight was between Neo and Smith. Yes, much worse than Priority Earth was in Mass Effect. The plot is much more convoluted in the Matrix. We know who the bad guys are in Mass Effect. They're one in the same.

[KaiserShep]

Not saying that the catalyst is a deus ex machina. That's actually what the machine in the matrix is officially called.

[Jaulen]

 

*snip*

• As for the Catalyst, it was created by Leviathan to solve synthetic and organic chaos. Their mistake was to not put any restraints (AI shackles) on it because they probably didnt want to limit its programming. They actually gave an ArteficiaI intelligence too much freedom - in order for it to think for itself to find a solution. If they did a failsafe and tried to use it the AI could probably counteract the attempt since it can modify and reprogram (or destroy the failsafe beforehand altogheter).

 

When I thought about it later, the whole, 'we created an AI to solve a problem, and they determined the problem was us, so the AI developed a 'final solution'' is such a sci-fi plot cliche (although the space-lice design of the reapers was creepy as all get out....*shudders*. The last starchild convo and choice in ME3 makes me think of the book Sea of Glass. But been a while since I read that....

[wolfhowwl]

I will echo those that suggested the obvious. Better planning was and is needed. Mass Effect was supposedly designed as a trilogy but it doesn’t really feel like one.

 

Planning ahead could have also perhaps avoided some self-inflicted injuries where BioWare bit off more than they could chew. "The classic example is 'Hey, let's make the ending of Mass Effect 2 a suicide mission where all your henchmen can possibly die, and Shepard can even die!' Oh right... and then we're gonna do another game after that. What the hell are we gonna do with all those guys?" Yeah.

[Bob from Accounting]

These ideas are either utterly terrible or completely obvious.

 

"Focus on STORY." Wow. Brilliant suggestion right there. My eyes have been opened.

[Luke Pearce]

 

  Showing bar graphs to compare weapons is good (ME3).  

I hated the bar graphs. Numbers are much better and easier to determine what is better.

 

e.g. 

 

Assault Rifle 1

Damage - 30

Rate of Fire - 10 shots/second

Damage Per Second - 300

 

Assault Rifle 2

Damage - 22

Rate of Fire - 15 shots/second

Damage Per Second - 330

 

So Assault Rifle 2 is superior if you can make every shot land but if you're using bars you can't really tell because the difference is so slight and you would end up swapping back and forth to determine which is better. Numbers are much better. Use both if you can though! Have a bar that says the number on it.

[KaiserShep]

For all the complaints about ME1's inventory system, the weapons stats was the one thing that should never have changed. I guess the devs wanted to keep the interface clean or something, but incorporating the raw numbers with the lines wouldn't have been difficult to comprehend.

[fchopin]

the sad thing is realizing this on your first playthrough of the game...
 
 
(way before ME3 was ever in development)

Tell me about it.

[AlanC9]

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the system completely (though it could use a more drastic overall). However, I'm definitely in favor getting rid of the color coded text. Too much hand holding. Let us interpret it our own way instead of how BW portrays it.

But aren't the color codes only used when the character can successfully perform a Charm or Intimidate action? I don't think hiding game mechanics is a good idea.

[CptFalconPunch]

I do think that constructive fan input is valid.

 

My main comment would be to have a coherent long term plot thought out. Which I think is the weakness in the ME series story.

(I may be wrong, I recall reading this here on the forums *so ingest with huge pile of salt* but I think they went into ME with an idea of a possible triology but only had the story for one game plotted (unsure of reception/if they'd be green lighted for more games)? Unlike what I think I recall the DA series has done, is have an overaching plot idea that could span multiple games...probably also helps that DA isn't tied to one protragonist/organization/big bad)

 

Not details, but a general outline. (I was told in English classes to start your story with the end in mind.)

And if they do not think they will be able to make sequels in the series to continue the overarching story from one game to the next, then the ending of each game should have enough closure to be satisfying and coherent, but leave things open for the future or 'speculation' from fans.

Fan input, is unintelligent, "lacking experience" ( is there an adjective for that?) opinions that developers usually laugh at 99.9% of the time.

 

So the best you can come up with is: "The plot must be coherent."

 

Well sherlock, I do agree, but remember, the places were the fanbase influenced the devs is "exploration" and "inventory" in ME2. How great was that huh?

 

So disagree, biowares greatest games were made without fan input. All evidence and common sense leads to that.

I believe one of the devs flatly stated that the human-Reaper was never supposed to be a replacement for Sovereign or anything of that nature. However, one of Harbinger's final ME2 lines is something like "we will find another way" which implies that Shepard did accomplish something. But it's really not clear what that something could be. Saving some thousands of colonists for a little while is nice for Shepard, but wouldn't be of any concern to Harbinger.

Or to anyone, since once the reapers arrive none of it will matter. And they are shown arriving at the end of ME2, so it doesn't matter AT ALL.

 

Shepard accomplished absolutely nothing in ME2, its the most glorified nonsesensical filler ever created.

 

Best parts of the design. But in general, I agree that fans are idiots and should be ignored.

 

Yep, we're morons who have absolutely no idea how games are made, especially as complex as Bioware's. The best thing we can do is point out flaws in the narrative and bugs ofc ^^

 

At the very least, they needed to figure out the Reaper's motivations before going forward (Honestly they probably should have set that in stone or determined never to reveal it back when they wrote Sovereign's speech in ME1), but they just sort of muddled through.

 

RIGHT Heimdall!    The ME storyline REALLY DOES owe us some answers -- instead of letting us fumble in the dark with endless loose ends....   I don't buy this crap about "it is too far beyond your comprehension....".    There is nothing "mysterous, wonderful, & wise" about mass galactic genocide -- it's pretty BASIC:  evil (however you want to define that).   Kill, steal, & destroy is NOT beyond our so-called "comprehension"....it's in the daily news.   How about some real answers!

 

I respect your opinion, but Lovecraftian horror just isn't for everyone. The fact that we cannot understand the reapers, not only makes them scarier, but also puts the reapers in our face and not at all at the same time. They are our main enemy, sure, but we don't have to bother learning them through.

 

They are effective without being elaborate. And a effective enemy is one that is scary and powerful. And in this case... indifferent.

 

Give this thing a read once you got the time: http://io9.com/58861...-our-generation

 

Again, I understand not wanting to think that deeply and like spoonfed stories, but I believe gaming has had enough of that already. The reapers, like it or not, were the best villains. Through nihilism and hopelesness you latch onto your teammates like never before.

 

And oh they had everything set up to be beyond our complrehension. Every single piece of technology we use, along with the supernatural elements of Mass Effect comes from the reapers. We're playing with technology and nature we cannot comprehend.

[CptFalconPunch]

I will echo those that suggested the obvious. Better planning was and is needed. Mass Effect was supposedly designed as a trilogy but it doesn’t really feel like one.

 

Planning ahead could have also perhaps avoided some self-inflicted injuries where BioWare bit off more than they could chew. "The classic example is 'Hey, let's make the ending of Mass Effect 2 a suicide mission where all your henchmen can possibly die, and Shepard can even die!' Oh right... and then we're gonna do another game after that. What the hell are we gonna do with all those guys?" Yeah.

 

 

You know what? Sur'kesh and Tuchanka were pehnomenal, by incorporating all the choices from ME1 and ME2. The salarian infiltration team, mordin, wrex, wreave. 

 

Incredibly replayable and fun, every time.

[AlanC9]

I respect your opinion, but Lovecraftian horror just isn't for everyone.

Including Bioware. They were never seriously committed to Lovecraftian horror; it was just some fun tropes before the big reveal they always intended to get to. Which of course will be disappointing to those of us who wanted them to stick with it.

[Jaulen]

Fan input, is unintelligent, "lacking experience" ( is there an adjective for that?) opinions that developers usually laugh at 99.9% of the time.

 

So the best you can come up with is: "The plot must be coherent."

 

Well sherlock, I do agree, but remember, the places were the fanbase influenced the devs is "exploration" and "inventory" in ME2. How great was that huh?

 

So disagree, biowares greatest games were made without fan input. All evidence and common sense leads to that.

Or to anyone, since once the reapers arrive none of it will matter. And they are shown arriving at the end of ME2, so it doesn't matter AT ALL.

 

'lacking experience' = uninformed.

 

I work in a field where I am bombarded every day with people/public commenting on my work, some have the knowledge to actually have a constructive comment, others are fluff/not applicable (I still have to read and respond to all the fluff), and every once in a while, someone who has no clue what they are talking about makes a comment (valid or not) that makes me think "I hadn't thought of that. or That would be good to look into." It's why we ask for feedback. Yeah, often times I laugh at the comments I get, or get frustrated by some, but the ones that make a light bulb go on are the ones that make all the other crap comments worth it.

 

 

And for me, when I play a Bioware game, the story is the most important, hence why I said to have a plot mapped out (know where you are going). The series of the game is obvious that from a narrative perspective that didn't fully happen, hence why I commented on it as a 'how to make a next game better'. I still enjoy the games and the story for the most part.

 

I also disliked the inventory and leveling system from ME2, ME3 was a little better, but ME was incredibly clunky. ME2, Disliked that I couldn't REALY tell what weapon was better for the style of play I like to do, it was all guesstimate based on reading the description, at least ME3 gave slider bars, but I preferred the numericals from ME. But I do not have vast experience with different games to know what works or not in an inventory system.

 

I also came into the ME series right before ME3 released so didn't have the 'investment' in the games others obviously have.

 

The reapers in ME were more terrifying, since you didn't know their motivation, they just WERE and we had to figure out how to stop them. Finding out their reason for reaping was really kind of a let down. The story made them go from some unknowable unspeakable horror to, in essence, 'badly written programming.'

[CptFalconPunch]

Uninformed means lacking information not experience. Inexperienced. Ha!

Yeah, often times I laugh at the comments I get, or get frustrated by some, but the ones that make a light bulb go on are the ones that make all the other crap comments worth it.

I don't know what field you're working on, but I surely have a very limited scope when it comes to gaming. Sure I can make some reccommendations, but if the devs get influenced, they will lose their original vision.
That is what made Mass Effect 1, KOTOR 1, Planetscape torment so damn good. They were new, fresh, clean. Uninfluenced by our opinions. I would love an IP as mindblowing as those, even if we don't provide feedback. Ditto

We are simple people, we repeat what we've seen elsewhere. We subconsciously like seeing familiar stuff. My opinion is that we poison the original vision.

 

And for me, when I play a Bioware game, the story is the most important, hence why I said to have a plot mapped out (know where you are going). The series of the game is obvious that from a narrative perspective that didn't fully happen, hence why I commented on it as a 'how to make a next game better'. I still enjoy the games and the story for the most part.

I think the devs are aware that the story has to keep its continuity. The best we can do, is point out the flaws. The worst we can do is flame and decide how things should be done.

 

The reapers in ME were more terrifying, since you didn't know their motivation, they just WERE and we had to figure out how to stop them. Finding out their reason for reaping was really kind of a let down. The story made them go from some unknowable unspeakable horror to, in essence, 'badly written programming.'

That is what happens when you're targeting a wider audience. The majority likes good vs evil stories where everything must be explained. Cause if it isn't, they have to think. And they don't want to think. They play games for brainless satisfaction.
 

Including Bioware. They were never seriously committed to Lovecraftian horror; it was just some fun tropes before the big reveal they always intended to get to. Which of course will be disappointing to those of us who wanted them to stick with it.

We really can never be sure what Drew's intentions were. However, the first game radiates Lovecraftian horror and cosmicism. It is filled with mysteries, from the citadel to the mass effect.
Hell, even the speech of sovereign reminds me A LOT of "the old ones" from H.P. Lovecraft.

Liking it or not, is really irrelevant. Some people can't help but ignore it, since horror like this is based around subtlety, and the majority of the game audience wants nothing else but subtlety.

Point is, they shouldn't have abandoned the themes that made the first so good. It is the same reason people don't like the ending.
In what way was Mass Effect setting shepard up to be the God that resolved the metaphysical tension of machines vs organics?

[Dean_the_Young]

Eh, ME1 sucked balls on a number of different points, mechanical and narrative and character, and I could never get through Planescape for what it's worth. KOTOR is also a drag to me. A lot of them would bomb today on their mechanics even if you updated their graphics to modern standards, just from clunky interfaces and some poor tropes and design choices.