218 réponses à ce sujet

[Alamar2078]

@Angel:  I could be wrong but from what I've heard the above items were supposed to be BW's goal in how such a team would be structured.  While I don't think a good job was done editing & architecting the story as a whole BW otherwise did a decent job considering that they arguably changed editors / architects / etc. more than once.  From what I can tell those principles were, at times, scrapped in the last game so that contributed to the apparent magnification effect of the failures in question.

 

If your response was sarcasm or similar then my detectors flat out missed that

 

FYI:  I have worked in "pre production" / "discovery" phases for ideas that didn't go anywhere.  Believe it or not even for something that goes nowhere you still wind up carefully considering how to best realize the project you're working on.  Team building and setting up structures that can allow for success are important parts of the equation.

[crimzontearz]

First question to ask.....


How do we know you are not going to force-kill our character at the end of the series because it is "your" character as opposed to "ours" in spite of how it was marketed and because apparently you know better than us what we are supposed to like?


It's sad that at this point I trust the DA team much more

[Alamar2078]

I'm on two minds on the issue.  On the consumer / game player side of things I believe that in a game revolving around choice the concept that the hero MUST do XYZ [including die] is wrong on face value.  Any situation that lends itself to XYZ regardless of prior action(s) / decision(s) in this scenario is at best weak.

 

On the other hand a lot of the creative people are fired up because they have a story they want to tell and if it serves the purposes of the story for XYZ to happen then that needs to occur.  Otherwise you're going to have a much harder time finding a creative staff that you would actually want if they're not allowed full creative control.

[crimzontearz]

I'm on two minds on the issue. On the consumer / game player side of things I believe that in a game revolving around choice the concept that the hero MUST do XYZ [including die] is wrong on face value. Any situation that lends itself to XYZ regardless of prior action(s) / decision(s) in this scenario is at best weak.

On the other hand a lot of the creative people are fired up because they have a story they want to tell and if it serves the purposes of the story for XYZ to happen then that needs to occur. Otherwise you're going to have a much harder time finding a creative staff that you would actually want if they're not allowed full creative control.

then do not offer me agency at all tyvm....if something as basic as the SURVIVAL of my character through my choices is not granted to me then screw it.


I am STILL not getting ME4 unless I get full spoilers anyhow. That is what I have done for DAI

[Alamar2078]

I tend to agree that agency shouldn't be given to the players if they're going to be railroaded regardless of the choices they make anyway.  As far as an ME4 goes I'd only buy it if it was reviewed as being awesome even by critics I trust AND it was standalone.  Otherwise I'd just wait until the series was done and if it appears to be worth my time THEN I'll pick up the series as a whole and go from there.

 

In terms of creating an awesome game I just want to repeat that it's HARD to make an RPG that has a great story while also allowing significant agency & choice.  It's hard to balance internal consistency vs. dramatic effect.  If BW can manage to do these things not just on a game by game basis but for an entire series then we've potentially got something really special.

[crimzontearz]

Yes...exactly

That is why I am entirely more confident in the DA series right now.

[angol fear]

@Angel:  I could be wrong but from what I've heard the above items were supposed to be BW's goal in how such a team would be structured.  While I don't think a good job was done editing & architecting the story as a whole BW otherwise did a decent job considering that they arguably changed editors / architects / etc. more than once.  From what I can tell those principles were, at times, scrapped in the last game so that contributed to the apparent magnification effect of the failures in question.

 

If your response was sarcasm or similar then my detectors flat out missed that

 

FYI:  I have worked in "pre production" / "discovery" phases for ideas that didn't go anywhere.  Believe it or not even for something that goes nowhere you still wind up carefully considering how to best realize the project you're working on.  Team building and setting up structures that can allow for success are important parts of the equation.

 

Just like you I know about pre production because I work on pre production, production and post production. So I'm more suprised now by what you said.

[Alamar2078]

@Angel:  Based on your last post it seems you have more experience than I do.  From your POV what do you shoot for, how would you build the team, etc.??  I'm asking because it seems like you think I'm flat out wrong --- I doubt you'd be surprised if I agreed with you or was even close to what you thought

 

Remember I've never seen a real project [of this nature] through to completion so if you have then your thoughts & real-life experience on the subject would be valuable.

[RatThing]

First question to ask.....


How do we know you are not going to force-kill our character at the end of the series because it is "your" character as opposed to "ours" in spite of how it was marketed and because apparently you know better than us what we are supposed to like?


It's sad that at this point I trust the DA team much more

 

A soldier in war cannot always control his own survival, so as long as it doesn't look like my character is seeking death they can kill him/her all they want. this isn't what takes me the character away. Not being able to say what I want him/her to say and do what I want him/her to do does it.

 

Also, they force-killed Shepard in ME2 already and I had a lot more problem with that (or better with him/her being revived). I wanted my character to be a simple human, good at what (s)he is doing, but not some kind of messiah. If you kill a character let him/her stay dead.

[crimzontearz]

A soldier in war cannot always control his own survival, so as long as it doesn't look like my character is seeking death they can kill him/her all they want. this isn't what takes me the character away. Not being able to say what I want him/her to say and do what I want him/her to do does it.

Also, they force-killed Shepard in ME2 already and I had a lot more problem with that (or better with him/her being revived). I wanted my character to be a simple human, good at what (s)he is doing, but not some kind of messiah. If you kill a character let him/her stay dead.

ME2's move to kill shepard was....uhm....yeah not the best. But it was not a force kill....if Shepard had been in a coma the same result would have been achieved. I feel that force siding you with cerberusb was worse....it could have been handled like TW2 if you ask me.

Anyway this is an RPG, force killing the PC is a **** move, one that generally would make me abandon the troupe. Maybe it's the tabletop guy in me talking of course.

[RatThing]

I don't think Bioware will kill their main character ever again. Seems to me the writers think this was the main reason for the uproar.

[crimzontearz]

Given that the creative director would not change a thing if he could go back ( per his own admission) I would not say that


Also....it's not just killing but force killing....if handled like DAO I have no issue with it.

[RatThing]

How did DAO handle it? I just recently got this game as a gift from Origin (I don`t mind spoilers here though).

[crimzontearz]

The PC can die but there are ways out of it and it is ALL up to the player


So if you WANT your warden dead you can have it...if you want him to live you can have that too.

[Linkenski]

I don't think Bioware will kill their main character ever again. Seems to me the writers think this was the main reason for the uproar.

Ugh, this still annoys me to infinite lengths, because it seems the majority of ending haters were not even on the same side as me. I completely hate the endings but as with the premise of ME3 I simply dislike it because it's stupid and doesn't play into the established overarching plot of the series in a meaningful way.

 

A friend of mine called it before the game was even out: "The game probably ends with Shepard dying" he said to me, and I was like "Dang, that would suck, but it would be very predictable somehow". Admittedly I did feel very sad that Shepard died (for a terrible cause) but it is far from the main reason the endings don't really work as conclusions to the trilogy... but I do agree the choice should've been up to the player (but only the right decisions would lead to Shepard surviving)

 

Also, Shepard doesn't die if you pick Destroy with max EMS so it doesn't really matter.

 

There were certainly other ways to ensure ME4 wouldn't have Shepard in it than to outright kill him just for the heck of it.

[Iakus]

How did DAO handle it? I just recently got this game as a gift from Origin (I don`t mind spoilers here though).

 

The Warden can die ending the Blight.  Or another can die in his/her stead.

 

There's also a third option where no one has to die, but you are possibly just delaying the problem for the next generation.

 

None of the solutions are sweeping changes to how Thedas operates.

[Iakus]

Ugh, this still annoys me to infinite lengths, because it seems the majority of ending haters were not even on the same side as me. I completely hate the endings but as with the premise of ME3 I simply dislike it because it's stupid and doesn't play into the established overarching plot of the series in a meaningful way.

 

A friend of mine called it before the game was even out: "The game probably ends with Shepard dying" he said to me, and I was like "Dang, that would suck, but it would be very predictable somehow". Admittedly I did feel very sad that Shepard died (for a terrible cause) but it is far from the main reason the endings don't really work as conclusions to the trilogy... but I do agree the choice should've been up to the player (but only the right decisions would lead to Shepard surviving)

 

Also, Shepard doesn't die if you pick Destroy with max EMS so it doesn't really matter.

 

There were certainly other ways to ensure ME4 wouldn't have Shepard in it than to outright kill him just for the heck of it.

Indeed.   Even if Shepard lived in all endings, they would still be terrible.

 

Shepard's near-inevitable death is just a final kick in the groin.  Not only do you have to do somehting terrible to the galaxy in order to "save" it, but you gotta die/be willing to die for this terrible purpose.

[Linkenski]

I get depressed thinking about DA:O in how well it implemented choices and consequences compared to now. DA:I actually had a lot of variables and choices but I didn't feel like there was the same freedom and player agency to them as in DA:O. At least, nothing tops those moments in DA:O when you get to decide who does what at the final battle and/or whether you do the ritual with Morrigan.

 

Speaking of which:

 

Dear Bioware.

 

You've made two games in a row now, where companions and gathered strength, did not mean anything in the final battle, which ruins the whole premise. Mass Effect 4 NEEDS to have choices and player agency in an epic final battle where all your forces are shown working together and you get to see it directly in the gameplay -- NO 3 or 4 CG cutscenes showing the factions I gathered and NO solo protagonist and standard squad vs final mission next time. You simply can't let your fans down like that 3 times in a row.

 

Sincerely - your fans.

[crimzontearz]

Ugh, this still annoys me to infinite lengths, because it seems the majority of ending haters were not even on the same side as me. I completely hate the endings but as with the premise of ME3 I simply dislike it because it's stupid and doesn't play into the established overarching plot of the series in a meaningful way.

A friend of mine called it before the game was even out: "The game probably ends with Shepard dying" he said to me, and I was like "Dang, that would suck, but it would be very predictable somehow". Admittedly I did feel very sad that Shepard died (for a terrible cause) but it is far from the main reason the endings don't really work as conclusions to the trilogy... but I do agree the choice should've been up to the player (but only the right decisions would lead to Shepard surviving)

Also, Shepard doesn't die if you pick Destroy with max EMS so it doesn't really matter.

There were certainly other ways to ensure ME4 wouldn't have Shepard in it than to outright kill him just for the heck of it.

Bioware can come out if hiding on the matter and say that officially then no?

Oh wait....

[RatThing]

Dear Bioware.

 

You've made two games in a row now, where companions and gathered strength, did not mean anything in the final battle, which ruins the whole premise. Mass Effect 4 NEEDS to have choices and player agency in an epic final battle where all your forces are shown working together and you get to see it directly in the gameplay -- NO 3 or 4 CG cutscenes showing the factions I gathered and NO solo protagonist and standard squad vs final mission next time. You simply can't let your fans down like that 3 times in a row.

 

Sincerely - your fans.

 

I'm not really sure if I'd want that. It sounds good in theory but I assume it kinda would put pressure on you to make the best choices for the ending instead to simply choose what you feel is right. For example if you'd need to recruit a companion you don't like and don't want to be around, just because you need a full squad for the best ending. Or if you'd need to establish peace between two groups to get both of their support when you actually want to pick a side. We had similar decisions in Mass Effect. To be honest, i think it would be better if gathering allies would not be an essential part of the next game. I don't play a game just for the ending. 

[JoltDealer]

When did we become a bunch of doomsayers?  Mac Walters was always going to have a hand in this one way or another.  We have no idea how he will handle things now that Casey Hudson is out of the picture, especially since we know that ME3's ending was a collaborative effort (or lack thereof) between the two.  Walters and Schlerf may be a good team, but only time will tell.

 

And as for Chris Schlerf, Halo 4 had a better story than most of the other games.  My only complaint was that some things were left to the books to explain, which I am not a fan of.  I like books, but I don't have time for video games and books.  That being said, the story was more emotional and, as others have said, far more thematic than previous games.  If he can make a good story out of Halo -- a series that was originally only supposed to be one game -- I'm sure he can do something pretty good with Mass Effect.

[crimzontearz]

When did we become a bunch of doomsayers?

march 2012? Oh and comicon 2012.

[Asharad Hett]

I don't think Bioware will kill their main character ever again. Seems to me the writers think this was the main reason for the uproar.

 

It certainly was part of it, but not the main reason.  I think the main reason was the sudden shift away from the reapers being the antagonist.

[Linkenski]

I'm not really sure if I'd want that. It sounds good in theory but I assume it kinda would put pressure on you to make the best choices for the ending instead to simply choose what you feel is right. For example if you'd need to recruit a companion you don't like and don't want to be around, just because you need a full squad for the best ending. Or if you'd need to establish peace between two groups to get both of their support when you actually want to pick a side. We had similar decisions in Mass Effect. To be honest, i think it would be better if gathering allies would not be an essential part of the next game. I don't play a game just for the ending. 

In the official blog post Chris Schlerf writes "I write for the characters" and Patrick Weekes who'll probably end up on the project a well also said at PAX last year "If I had the ultimatum of having to choose between removing interactive dialogue or the companion characters, I'd remove interactive dialogue, because I feel the companions is the best thing about Bioware games" or something like that.

 

Somehow I think they'll hold on to that, and as long as that's true Companion characters need to have an impact if it's your typical Bioware plot of assembling a crew to strike back at the enemy.

 

I'm actually hoping ME4 will have a somewhat more linear narrative, but that's probably not gonna happen now that inside source Shinobi on NeoGAF says it's already shaping up to be bigger than Inquisition and such. I just hope we can have a game about exploration without making the majority of your gametime be spent on completely optional fluff and boring fetch quests this time.

 

I want Mass Effect 2 2.0

[Alamar2078]

I wonder if it's time that ME4 changed genres then?  If characters are more important than interactive dialog [choice??] then I'd prefer a shift to something closer to "interactive movie" with RPG elements.  If they advertised it as such then at least expectations would be set properly.  This would also dramatically lower a lot of the variables and it would work better given BW's development style / cycle.