21 réponses à ce sujet

[von uber]

In lieu of actually actually playing the game..

 

(Yes I know, blame the steam summer sale)

 

.. I was thinking of how an interesting mechanic they could have implemented would have been an either / or choice for various missions.

Examples:

 

Either Grissom Academy (get Jack) or Cerberus Scientists (bad luck Jacob)

Either Turian Platoon/bomb or Aralakh Company

Either Geth Consensus or Admiral Koris

 

That kind of thing. Could have made for some interesting choices and calls on who to sacrifice / save - i.e. you can't save everybody. Would have made for some intereting and more varied playthroughs  - although would require things like Geth/Quarian peace to be reworked, but if the game had been written with these choices in mind then it could have been workable.

 

 

 

[SporkFu]

A person could make those choices within the game now, by planning to do one or the other when the choice is there and sticking to it.

[von uber]

A person could make those choices within the game now, by planning to do one or the other when the choice is there and sticking to it.

 

true, but I that is enforcing a fail state on yourself. I think that being made to make these tough choices (ala Virmire) would give these missions / choices more impact and help to offset the easily achievable whole perfect playthrough.

I only used these missions as examples, as we are constrained by the examples currently in the game. I think that hard choices that had to be made could have made the impact of the hopelessness of the war even better (and made the dream sequences more relevant).

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The game should have had these "you can't save everyone" mechanics built in.

 

* for femShep, Jacob bites it every time especially if romanced.

* Grunt... well because... "Shepard... got anything to eat?"

* Saving Admiral Koris. - you mean you don't want to watch the Geth propaganda film at 11:00? No!

[SporkFu]

The game should have had these "you can't save everyone" mechanics built in.

* for femShep, Jacob bites it every time especially if romanced.
* Grunt... well because... "Shepard... got anything to eat?"
* Saving Admiral Koris. - you mean you don't want to watch the Geth propaganda film at 11:00? No!

Except Grunt is indestructible.
EDIT: As for Jacob I'd like the option to leave him on Lazarus Station.... Just the option.

[BurningBlood]

You mean like in the original ME1 trailer, where Shep chooses to abandon Noveria in order to save Caleston?  That was the reason I wanted to play the game in the first place.

 

Turns out I loved it anyway.

[ImaginaryMatter]

You mean like in the original ME1 trailer, where Shep chooses to abandon Noveria in order to save Caleston?  That was the reason I wanted to play the game in the first place.

 

Turns out I loved it anyway.

 

I wonder if that was an abandoned plot element?

 

According to the ME wiki Caleston was originally the site of Liara's recruitment mission as well as a hub of sorts, so maybe?

[von uber]

You mean like in the original ME1 trailer, where Shep chooses to abandon Noveria in order to save Caleston? That was the reason I wanted to play the game in the first place.

Turns out I loved it anyway.

Yes, pretty much. None of the decisions were actually that difficult, you can easily have a rainbows and unicorns playthrough (excluding bioware throwing edi and the geth under the bus).
What would have been more interesting if it was a choice between say saving the primark and greater turian forces, or saving garrus (as a scenario off the top of my head) at the expense of fewer due to a longer period of chaos in the chain of succession.

[Daemul]

You mean like in the original ME1 trailer, where Shep chooses to abandon Noveria in order to save Caleston? That was the reason I wanted to play the game in the first place.

Turns out I loved it anyway.

Please don't remind me, that was the only reason I bought Mass Effect 1 in the first place. It did not at all live up to the promise, except at the end of Mass Effect 3 lmao

[DeinonSlayer]

Reminds me of what several people have suggested about Redcliff Castle in DA:O - riding off on the week-long trip to the Circle Tower to fetch the mages instead of dealing with Connor (rather, the very powerful demon inhabiting him) immediately in one of the two ways available should have resulted in the village coming under another attack by undead by the time you got back, thanks to the Warden's compulsive need to save everyone overriding expediency in a time-sensitive situation.

[KrrKs]

I'm not really a fan of XOR Missions. But the sequence should have a bigger impact imo. Similar to some of the old CnC missions.

 

Say there are 2 missions, A and B.

 -Doing A first will reduce the enemy number in mission B, but might lead to not being able to rescue/recruit a squad-mate there (maybe both dependent on a timer)

 -doing B first, you will rescue/recruit the squad-mate, but have to fight more/tougher enemies. Additionally an upgrade from mission A may no longer be available.

 

Or (because this was already used as example here):

 If you do the Aralakh companie first, you can use the surviving companie members to help with the turian platoon mission, but the turians may be dead. And vice-versa.

[themikefest]

Reminds me of what several people have suggested about Redcliff Castle in DA:O - riding off on the week-long trip to the Circle Tower to fetch the mages instead of dealing with Connor (rather, the very powerful demon inhabiting him) immediately in one of the two ways available should have resulted in the village coming under another attack by undead by the time you got back, thanks to the Warden's compulsive need to save everyone overriding expediency in a time-sensitive situation.

I agree. There should of been a larger impact for going off to the circle.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Reminds me of what several people have suggested about Redcliff Castle in DA:O - riding off on the week-long trip to the Circle Tower to fetch the mages instead of dealing with Connor (rather, the very powerful demon inhabiting him) immediately in one of the two ways available should have resulted in the village coming under another attack by undead by the time you got back, thanks to the Warden's compulsive need to save everyone overriding expediency in a time-sensitive situation.

 

Well, the issue is that how is Connor going to raise an undead army this time? I don't see the problem of going to the Circle and getting the Circle Magi to help. It's a senseless death to be fair, and IMO, hardly a cause for an amelioration by making the Circle inattainable for the sake of enforced drama. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I agree. There should of been a larger impact for going off to the circle.

 

As I said, I completely disagree.

[cap and gown]

I dislike this proposal because it would mean sacrificing content on each playthrough. Most people want the maximum content in each playthrough. They don't want to have to do multiple playthroughs to see all the different missions. This is not the same as having to do multiple playthroughs in order to explore the many variations in how things play out if we make different choices, it is simply cutting out content altogether in any one playthrough.

[von uber]

I think most people would want a more interesting and impactful game rather than just content (which on the end isn't much; planet mining is content after all).

[cap and gown]

I think most people would want a more interesting and impactful game rather than just content (which on the end isn't much; planet mining is content after all).

 

Says Mr. Journal-OCD.

[AlanC9]

I dislike this proposal because it would mean sacrificing content on each playthrough. Most people want the maximum content in each playthrough. They don't want to have to do multiple playthroughs to see all the different missions. This is not the same as having to do multiple playthroughs in order to explore the many variations in how things play out if we make different choices, it is simply cutting out content altogether in any one playthrough.

This is pretty close to what Bio's said about it. They don't want lots of content that won't be experienced in a single playthrough because a large majority of players don't replay the games.

OTOH, a majority never finish the games at all, so I don't see how this is really something they need to worry about.

[von uber]

Says Mr. Journal-OCD.

Exactly I need all the help I can get

[DeinonSlayer]

This is pretty close to what Bio's said about it. They don't want lots of content that won't be experienced in a single playthrough because a large majority of players don't replay the games.OTOH, a majority never finish the games at all, so I don't see how this is really something they need to worry about.

This "all content must be accessible to all players" mindset prevents them from writing truly branching storylines.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

This "all content must be accessible to all players" mindset prevents them from writing truly branching storylines.

 

Granted though, as much as I approve of this, it's not what you'd call financially savvy. 

 

I spend a little time on FB on the Mass Effect page: the vast majority of people that comment are the types that support a 'paragon only' style of gameplay, where you really only do things as paragon. This ties into the idea that most people only want to play the game like David (and most of them don't even know about an alternative). On FB, the vast majority don't even know what an RPG is. 

 

BW would be spending a lot of resources on features that most people don't really understand or care about, and they aren't really the kind of people anymore to do things for the sake of doing them, especially with the sort of stuff put on them by EA. 

[von uber]

The witcher 2 managed it okay.