165 réponses à ce sujet

[Silcron]

As far as you're your own created character and let's tell an interesting story with prestablished lore Halo 4 did a fantastic job. I'm not talking about the main campaign (which was good, I enjoyed it a lot) but Spartan Ops. As the sotry progressed you started to know and care about the characters presented. And when the ending comes you're left with a great cliffhanger with some character development that makes sense with what has been presented in the story. I won't spoil it, you can look at the cutscenes which tell most of the story on your own.

Personally I'm happy about this guy coming in.

[Rosstoration]

We go from Drew Karpyshn (KotoR, Baldur's Gate 2, Jade Empire) to Mac Walters and now Chris Schlerf :/

 

I mean, I'm glad that Walters has stepped down from lead writer, I thought ME3 took a nose dive in the writing department personally, and the guy seems to be more obsessed with pumping out mediocre comic books than creating video games, I think creative director will probably be a better fit for him.

 

But Schlerf? So far I can only find that he wrote Halo 4, and writing for an rpg is a bit more of a stretch creatively; the story is now a crucial element of the game, rather than something secondary - like when writing for shooters. I genuinely wish him every success with it, but why not Dombrow or Weekes? Both fantastic writers who are intimately familiar with the setting, both writing easily the greatest parts of ME3.

 

I'm not going to bash the game before it comes out, there seems to be a lot of new guys coming on board for Mass Effect 4, very unproven, but they all seem enthusiastic about the project and I really hope Schlerf is up to it and delivers us something fantastic. Good luck to him.

[SimonTheFrog]

Well this goes back to my point that we really never had control over Shepard. He was an established character that we were able to have some control over, but much less control than protagonists from Dragon Age (besides DA2) or Knights of the Old Republic. We were just along for the ride and we could determine if he was a good guy (Paragon) or a bad ass (Renegade). Regardless of which approach to Shepard you took, it was inevitably going to lead to the same place.

 

I think the issue is many had a false sense of ownership over the character. We never really defined who Shepard was. Yes, we were able to make some major choices (council lives or dies, anderson or udina becomes a council member, destroy the collector base or not, etc.), but Shepard's goal was always to destroy the Reapers (TIM says this, Anderson, Hackett, even Shepard himself) since ME1.

 

One reason I'm enjoying DAI thus far is because the Inquisitor is a blank slate, unlike Shepard. Besides a basic origin, BioWare didn't give the Inquisitor determined personalities. We have a handful of choices we choose that can result in a large variety of different Inquisitors. We aren't just choosing between renegade/paragon or diplomacy/aggressive/humorous. That being said, the Inquisitor (at least initially) isn't as compelling as Shepard because he has less to offer. It's a trade-off. Should players be able to have more control or should the main protagonist have more of a personality for a better story?

 

I think the other minor misstep on BioWare's part was giving players false impressions. They honestly did the fan base a disservice by allowing everybody to live through the Suicide Mission in ME2. It was unrealistic and gave too much power and control to the player. The same essentially happened in ME1. As a result, people were just expecting that if they were a completionist, they could achieve the "happy ending" where everybody lives and the credits roll with Shepard performing his famous shuffle. That's what many wanted, to have complete control to determine their ending, and I believe that was BioWare's only misstep.

 

I personally preferred the approach in ME3 that there were going to be sacrifices, given the superiority of the Reapers. BioWare should have just addressed that approach much earlier on than placing this final, game changing moral dilemma that was going to affect the fabric of the entire galaxy forever. What was ironic is that the final decision of ME3 really allows people to actually make a choice rather than choosing a paragon/renegade option like ever other choice in the three games. I think that bothered people greatly because the ending was so morally ambiguous and it wasn't clear what was "right" or "wrong." That was the point BioWare was trying to make though, which I liked, but admittedly Mass Effect had always been largely black and white because of the morality system.

 

Long story short, I don't believe BioWare made a mistake directly with how ME3's ending occurred. I believe they made a mistake in giving people illusory choices of paragon/renegade and then making the final choice in the game unlike anything they had encountered. It was arguably a curve ball, and many reacted poorly to it.

 

Yes, I agree that it turned out that the Shep was pretty much pre-defined and "roleplaying" by the player was mainly hollow cosmetics. In other games, dunno, like "binary domain" where you control the protagonist and select dialog options it would never have occured to me that i don't just push the protagonist through a pre-defined story.

 

But ME tried very hard, both ingame and via PR/Marketing, to sell the idea that Shep's personality can be molded by player's choices. So, that's what i meant: mixed signals.

 

As for the ending "misstep" I have a different theory O:-) I believe that the biggest misstep was that the player didn't feel rewarded by the ending. 1.) There was no boss-battle and that feeling of accomplishment that follows after its demise. 2.) The villain just handed his army over to the player/sheps disposal no questions asked instead of having the player actually fight for it and take it from the dead cold hands of the villain, another opportunity for a sense of accomplishment waisted and 3.) Every shep had the same ending which negated all the accomplishments from the 5 year old history of building your "unique" version of shep.

 

So, according to my view its not the happy or tragic ending that was disappointing but the missing interactivity. The game didn't recognize the player's agency.

[SimonTheFrog]

We go from Drew Karpyshn (KotoR, Baldur's Gate 2, Jade Empire) to Mac Walters and now Chris Schlerf :/

 

I mean, I'm glad that Walters has stepped down from lead writer, I thought ME3 took a nose dive in the writing department personally, and the guy seems to be more obsessed with pumping out mediocre comic books than creating video games, I think creative director will probably be a better fit for him.

 

But Schlerf? So far I can only find that he wrote Halo 4, and writing for an rpg is a bit more of a stretch creatively; the story is now a crucial element of the game, rather than something secondary - like when writing for shooters. I genuinely wish him every success with it, but why not Dombrow or Weekes? Both fantastic writers who are intimately familiar with the setting, both writing easily the greatest parts of ME3.

 

I'm not going to bash the game before it comes out, there seems to be a lot of new guys coming on board for Mass Effect 4, very unproven, but they all seem enthusiastic about the project and I really hope Schlerf is up to it and delivers us something fantastic. Good luck to him.

 

Yes, it is difficult to understand why they hire someone from the outside who has almost no track record on game writing and has never done anything RPG related instead of giving the job to one of their many writers that have proven themselves already by writing high quality content for the franchise. Also, why must there be one guy as lead writer. It would seem that main-story writing should be done by several people with shared responsibility. Game writing is different to writing for a film or a novel.

[Revan Reborn]

We go from Drew Karpyshn (KotoR, Baldur's Gate 2, Jade Empire) to Mac Walters and now Chris Schlerf :/

 

I mean, I'm glad that Walters has stepped down from lead writer, I thought ME3 took a nose dive in the writing department personally, and the guy seems to be more obsessed with pumping out mediocre comic books than creating video games, I think creative director will probably be a better fit for him.

 

But Schlerf? So far I can only find that he wrote Halo 4, and writing for an rpg is a bit more of a stretch creatively; the story is now a crucial element of the game, rather than something secondary - like when writing for shooters. I genuinely wish him every success with it, but why not Dombrow or Weekes? Both fantastic writers who are intimately familiar with the setting, both writing easily the greatest parts of ME3.

 

I'm not going to bash the game before it comes out, there seems to be a lot of new guys coming on board for Mass Effect 4, very unproven, but they all seem enthusiastic about the project and I really hope Schlerf is up to it and delivers us something fantastic. Good luck to him.

You clearly haven't played Halo and more specifically Halo 4 then. The story is definitely not "secondary" as it drives the entire experience. We could make an argument about that with Battlefield and Call of Duty, but not Halo. As was my point previously, BioWare wants new blood, not people who have already been working with the studio for years. How can they possibly come up with something compelling and new when they have been working on Mass Effect for years? BioWare needs new direction for Mass Effect with a new writing leadership. I don't see a better candidate for the job.

 

Yes, I agree that it turned out that the Shep was pretty much pre-defined and "roleplaying" by the player was mainly hollow cosmetics. In other games, dunno, like "binary domain" where you control the protagonist and select dialog options it would never have occured to me that i don't just push the protagonist through a pre-defined story.

 

But ME tried very hard, both ingame and via PR/Marketing, to sell the idea that Shep's personality can be molded by player's choices. So, that's what i meant: mixed signals.

 

As for the ending "misstep" I have a different theory O:-) I believe that the biggest misstep was that the player didn't feel rewarded by the ending. 1.) There was no boss-battle and that feeling of accomplishment that follows after its demise. 2.) The villain just handed his army over to the player/sheps disposal no questions asked instead of having the player actually fight for it and take it from the dead cold hands of the villain, another opportunity for a sense of accomplishment waisted and 3.) Every shep had the same ending which negated all the accomplishments from the 5 year old history of building your "unique" version of shep.

 

So, according to my view its not the happy or tragic ending that was disappointing but the missing interactivity. The game didn't recognize the player's agency.

1. I don't particularly believe a "boss battle" is a necessary component for any video game. On the contrary, I thought the final battle between Saren and the human reaper were far from interesting or well-executed. It honestly felt like unnecessary filler that I didn't particularly believe was that fun or engaging. It was just there for the sake of being there. I would have preferred an endless wave of geth or collectors you'd have to fend off rather than a stereotypical RPG boss fight.

2. I don't really agree with this point either because the Catalyst wasn't a "villain" really. It was a rogue AI that was trying to do what it felt was in the best interest of the galaxy. When Shepard delayed the cycle and defied the reapers, the Catalyst took interest in him and saw another possibility. I personally believe that's what made the entire situation interesting because there wasn't the stereotypical "good guy gets the bad guy."

3. Same ending? Did we play the same game? There were four very different endings depending on your choice. Not only that but your galactic readiness would determine how decimated the Earth was and how many people survived. On the contrary, I'd say the final dialogue of the game was the only time players actually had real choice to make their own decision, instead of choosing a paragon/renegade option. I believe people didn't like the fact they had to choose and would have preferred a paragon (save everybody) ending or renegade (control the catalyst). Again, the idea of building your own "unique Shepard" was illusory. We never controlled him, only whether he was a paragon or renegade, which rarely changed the outcome of the game that much.

 

I see it as being reversed. There was never player agency in the Mass Effect trilogy. It wasn't until the final decision in ME3 that we actually were making a choice that wasn't confined by BioWare's storytelling and the pre-established Shepard. People didn't know how to handle it and as a result heavily criticized the ending because of the difficult moral dilemma where everybody couldn't be saved and not having that happy paragon ending where everybody wins.

[Revan Reborn]

Yes, it is difficult to understand why they hire someone from the outside who has almost no track record on game writing and has never done anything RPG related instead of giving the job to one of their many writers that have proven themselves already by writing high quality content for the franchise. Also, why must there be one guy as lead writer. It would seem that main-story writing should be done by several people with shared responsibility. Game writing is different to writing for a film or a novel.

There is no such thing as having more than one lead writer for any game. Even for SWTOR, which was BioWare's most ambitious undertaking especially with respect to writing, Daniel Erickson was the lead writer, but he wasn't writing the stories (he did write part of the BH story before becoming the lead writer). He was directing and making sure that everything was consistent and that people were doing what they were supposed to do. You can't have multiple lead writers as nothing would ever get done. You need someone with the final say to call the shots and have the vision and goal.

[SimonTheFrog]

There is no such thing as having more than one lead writer for any game. Even for SWTOR, which was BioWare's most ambitious undertaking especially with respect to writing, Daniel Erickson was the lead writer, but he wasn't writing the stories (he did write part of the BH story before becoming the lead writer). He was directing and making sure that everything was consistent and that people were doing what they were supposed to do. You can't have multiple lead writers as nothing would ever get done. You need someone with the final say to call the shots and have the vision and goal.

 

Yeah... i know. But wouldn't it be better if that "final call" would be something several people have to agree upon rather than important parts of the story being up to an egomaniac "artist" who can't be argued against?

 

Dunno... it's offtopic rambling on my side. So its probably best to just drop this point

[SimonTheFrog]

You clearly haven't played Halo and more specifically Halo 4 then. The story is definitely not "secondary" as it drives the entire experience. We could make an argument about that with Battlefield and Call of Duty, but not Halo. As was my point previously, BioWare wants new blood, not people who have already been working with the studio for years. How can they possibly come up with something compelling and new when they have been working on Mass Effect for years? BioWare needs new direction for Mass Effect with a new writing leadership. I don't see a better candidate for the job.

 

1. I don't particularly believe a "boss battle" is a necessary component for any video game. On the contrary, I thought the final battle between Saren and the human reaper were far from interesting or well-executed. It honestly felt like unnecessary filler that I didn't particularly believe was that fun or engaging. It was just there for the sake of being there. I would have preferred an endless wave of geth or collectors you'd have to fend off rather than a stereotypical RPG boss fight.

2. I don't really agree with this point either because the Catalyst wasn't a "villain" really. It was a rogue AI that was trying to do what it felt was in the best interest of the galaxy. When Shepard delayed the cycle and defied the reapers, the Catalyst took interest in him and saw another possibility. I personally believe that's what made the entire situation interesting because there wasn't the stereotypical "good guy gets the bad guy."

3. Same ending? Did we play the same game? There were four very different endings depending on your choice. Not only that but your galactic readiness would determine how decimated the Earth was and how many people survived. On the contrary, I'd say the final dialogue of the game was the only time players actually had real choice to make their own decision, instead of choosing a paragon/renegade option. I believe people didn't like the fact they had to choose and would have preferred a paragon (save everybody) ending or renegade (control the catalyst). Again, the idea of building your own "unique Shepard" was illusory. We never controlled him, only whether he was a paragon or renegade, which rarely changed the outcome of the game that much.

 

I see it as being reversed. There was never player agency in the Mass Effect trilogy. It wasn't until the final decision in ME3 that we actually were making a choice that wasn't confined by BioWare's storytelling and the pre-established Shepard. People didn't know how to handle it and as a result heavily criticized the ending because of the difficult moral dilemma where everybody couldn't be saved and not having that happy paragon ending where everybody wins.

 

We go slightly off the thread here but it's a productive conversation i feel so maybe it's not too bad.

 

So, yes, boss battles... I totally agree that they are not necessary. I also agree that the frog thing from ME1 is a very fine example of a boss battle done wrong/awkward. Especially because the scenes right before that (fighting Krogans on the on the "outsides" of the wards under the reaper, talking to Saren etc.) were among the most memorable i've ever played in a game and fighting the frog afterwards was really a let down.

But! Having a boss battle at the end of the game and after winning this watching a nice cutscene were the good stuff is shown that results in defeating the boss is an emotional impact for the player were he can feel like being a part of. HE killed the boss, he had agency in whats going on in that world.

If you skip the boss battle you have to put something there that fills the gap. Something that the player can do or experience that brings his journey in the game to a satisfying end. And not by telling the player about it like a film would but by letting it up to the player to DO. That's what the interactive experience is all about.

In my mind this didn't happen at the end of ME3. It's basically just people talking about things that make more or less sense and then you chose something you don't even have enough info about to make an informed decision. It's not enough interactivety.

 

Concerning point 2: In my eyes the catalyst is the reapers and the reapers are the villains of the ME trilogy. I mean yes, turns out it was all a big misunderstanding. But the emotional context for the player is that that those big machines are the threat that must be overcome, hence the villain.

 

And finally 3: sorry, that's a misunderstanding. All sheps are getting the same choices (depending on their assets collection of course) no matter whether they chose to be friendly to the galaxy or not. When you are talking to the catalyst, nothing in your past matters. It's like nothing even mattered.

But please, don't get me wrong. I don't mind pushing a shoehorned story forward, i love playing games like "The last of us". But ME made a big deal about player choice and "roleplaying" your shep. Until they didn't at all. And for me, the nightmare-dream sequences and the final minutes are prime examples for those cases. There are other cases where you decisions mattered a lot, of course.

 

Do i make more sense now?

[Heimdall]

Yeah... i know. But wouldn't it be better if that "final call" would be something several people have to agree upon rather than important parts of the story being up to an egomaniac "artist" who can't be argued against?
 
Dunno... it's offtopic rambling on my side. So its probably best to just drop this point

Well, as I understand it the lead writer has to come to a consensus with the creative director and a few other senior developers on the broad strokes of the story (which I imagine must include the ending). From there the lead writer's responsibility is to make sure there's consistency between the various story elements written by different members of the writing team. That's not to say there isn't any dialogue between the writers and the lead writer as to content.

Point is I'm pretty sure the lead writer doesn't have total control.

[Revan Reborn]

We go slightly off the thread here but it's a productive conversation i feel so maybe it's not too bad.

 

So, yes, boss battles... I totally agree that they are not necessary. I also agree that the frog thing from ME1 is a very fine example of a boss battle done wrong/awkward. Especially because the scenes right before that (fighting Krogans on the on the "outsides" of the wards under the reaper, talking to Saren etc.) were among the most memorable i've ever played in a game and fighting the frog afterwards was really a let down.

But! Having a boss battle at the end of the game and after winning this watching a nice cutscene were the good stuff is shown that results in defeating the boss is an emotional impact for the player were he can feel like being a part of. HE killed the boss, he had agency in whats going on in that world.

If you skip the boss battle you have to put something there that fills the gap. Something that the player can do or experience that brings his journey in the game to a satisfying end. And not by telling the player about it like a film would but by letting it up to the player to DO. That's what the interactive experience is all about.

In my mind this didn't happen at the end of ME3. It's basically just people talking about things that make more or less sense and then you chose something you don't even have enough info about to make an informed decision. It's not enough interactivety.

 

Concerning point 2: In my eyes the catalyst is the reapers and the reapers are the villains of the ME trilogy. I mean yes, turns out it was all a big misunderstanding. But the emotional context for the player is that that those big machines are the threat that must be overcome, hence the villain.

 

And finally 3: sorry, that's a misunderstanding. All sheps are getting the same choices (depending on their assets collection of course) no matter whether they chose to be friendly to the galaxy or not. When you are talking to the catalyst, nothing in your past matters. It's like nothing even mattered.

But please, don't get me wrong. I don't mind pushing a shoehorned story forward, i love playing games like "The last of us". But ME made a big deal about player choice and "roleplaying" your shep. Until they didn't at all. And for me, the nightmare-dream sequences and the final minutes are prime examples for those cases. There are other cases where you decisions mattered a lot, of course.

 

Do i make more sense now?

Well I think not being informed was point. Shepard was put in a unfavorable situation with the fate of the galaxy in his hands. His choice would profusely affect the lives of trillions and he had to go with his gut. This wasn't a preferred option. Certainly Shepard didn't want to be placed in this situation. However, he did what he had to do.

 

The only game I really felt "needed" a boss battle was Fable 2. That game by far had the worst ending in an RPG. Period. At least with ME3, BioWare focused on what they do best, story, rather than another awkward and ridiculous boss battle. Unless Shepard was going to go toe to toe with a Reaper, which would have been silly, I'm not sure who he would have fought. I certainly see your point about interactivity though, but I don't believe it necessarily needs to be achieve with an obligatory boss fight.

 

At least for me, learning from the Catalyst the true purpose of the Reapers changed my perception of them. They were merely tools used to try and create a utopia that would never exist. I think stories are poorly written when the villain is easily identifiable and easy to hate. Stories are much more compelling when you can feel empathy for the "villain" and even relate, to some level, with their actions and motivations. The Catalyst was a rogue AI that was idealistic in its execution. This wasn't really about killing the "bad guys," but rather trying to understand what would be best for the galaxy.

 

How does nothing in your past matter talking to the Catalyst? Why should it apply to that choice? I don't know. I never felt Mass Effect was a very good role playing game. It's more of a story-driven, action-oriented, third-person shooter. You can pick a personality for Shepard, but you never really control him. I'm not sure why that would surprise anyone as Shepard had been that way since ME1. I have a feeling BioWare will go the DAI route in MENext by having an unknown grunt who you have much more control defining the character.

 

There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. Generally when BioWare already has an established character, they can produce a better story. If they have less control over his motivations and personality, there is generally a disconnect and the experience isn't as strong (see silent protagonists such as KotOR I, II, and DAO).

[SimonTheFrog]

Well I think not being informed was point. Shepard was put in a unfavorable situation with the fate of the galaxy in his hands. His choice would profusely affect the lives of trillions and he had to go with his gut. This wasn't a preferred option. Certainly Shepard didn't want to be placed in this situation. However, he did what he had to do.

 

The only game I really felt "needed" a boss battle was Fable 2. That game by far had the worst ending in an RPG. Period. At least with ME3, BioWare focused on what they do best, story, rather than another awkward and ridiculous boss battle. Unless Shepard was going to go toe to toe with a Reaper, which would have been silly, I'm not sure who he would have fought. I certainly see your point about interactivity though, but I don't believe it necessarily needs to be achieve with an obligatory boss fight.

 

At least for me, learning from the Catalyst the true purpose of the Reapers changed my perception of them. They were merely tools used to try and create a utopia that would never exist. I think stories are poorly written when the villain is easily identifiable and easy to hate. Stories are much more compelling when you can feel empathy for the "villain" and even relate, to some level, with their actions and motivations. The Catalyst was a rogue AI that was idealistic in its execution. This wasn't really about killing the "bad guys," but rather trying to understand what would be best for the galaxy.

 

How does nothing in your past matter talking to the Catalyst? Why should it apply to that choice? I don't know. I never felt Mass Effect was a very good role playing game. It's more of a story-driven, action-oriented, third-person shooter. You can pick a personality for Shepard, but you never really control him. I'm not sure why that would surprise anyone as Shepard had been that way since ME1. I have a feeling BioWare will go the DAI route in MENext by having an unknown grunt who you have much more control defining the character.

 

There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. Generally when BioWare already has an established character, they can produce a better story. If they have less control over his motivations and personality, there is generally a disconnect and the experience isn't as strong (see silent protagonists such as KotOR I, II, and DAO).

 

The most important lesson to be learned here is probably "Planning is important".

 

If you want to create an ambiguous villain with relatable motives but "wrong" methods, than you have to introduce that at somepoint during the game, not in the last 5 minutes, so that the player actually has time to let it sink in and then deal with that villain in an appropriate way. At the end of ME3 they suddenly felt it was necessary to start a whole new chapter of exposition to introduce the new concept of reaper origin and motivation just so that the final RGB choice can somehow work. That was too much new info too late in the game for my taste.

 

Likewise, if you want to tell a story about a pre-defined hero and his/her adventures and growth, fine, but then you should be careful about how much ownership you want to promise the player about the hero's personality. I feel, like i said before, that both ingame and through marketing/interviews etc. the ME player was promised a LOT of ownership over the hero's personality.

 

And again with the boss battles, like i said, i agree that games don't have to have one. That's quite an obvious one, too, i think. But there is a reason why there are so many bosses at the end of games and that's what i said earlier: they give the player an emotional feeling of accomplishment when beaten. And you want that for the player. Also, players expect something along those lines. Both because of being used to it and also because interactive media work different than passive media. So, if you don't want a boss battle you should have a plan what to put there instead.

 

I hope that they plan ahead much better this time what they want the player to experience and what they want him to have control over. I'd really love it if the bits and pieces would fit together much better.

[Revan Reborn]

The most important lesson to be learned here is probably "Planning is important".

 

If you want to create an ambiguous villain with relatable motives but "wrong" methods, than you have to introduce that at somepoint during the game, not in the last 5 minutes, so that the player actually has time to let it sink in and then deal with that villain in an appropriate way. At the end of ME3 they suddenly felt it was necessary to start a whole new chapter of exposition to introduce the new concept of reaper origin and motivation just so that the final RGB choice can somehow work. That was too much new info too late in the game for my taste.

 

Likewise, if you want to tell a story about a pre-defined hero and his/her adventures and growth, fine, but then you should be careful about how much ownership you want to promise the player about the hero's personality. I feel, like i said before, that both ingame and through marketing/interviews etc. the ME player was promised a LOT of ownership over the hero's personality.

 

And again with the boss battles, like i said, i agree that games don't have to have one. That's quite an obvious one, too, i think. But there is a reason why there are so many bosses at the end of games and that's what i said earlier: they give the player an emotional feeling of accomplishment when beaten. And you want that for the player. Also, players expect something along those lines. Both because of being used to it and also because interactive media work different than passive media. So, if you don't want a boss battle you should have a plan what to put there instead.

 

I hope that they plan ahead much better this time what they want the player to experience and what they want him to have control over. I'd really love it if the bits and pieces would fit together much better.

The Catalyst was literally introduced the opening moments of the game... you just didn't realize it until the end of the story. That is what's beautiful about the writing in ME3. It's so expertly crafted that the "villain" was right there in front of you the whole time and you didn't even realize it. A similar storytelling approach was used by CDPR with The Witcher 1 where Geralt and Triss are protecting Alvin, who inevitably turns out to be the "villain" in the end. What BioWare did was turn everything you thought you knew about the reapers upside down. They went from being these ruthless and mysterious advanced race of sentient beings into tools used as a means to an end to maintain "order." The questions surrounding the reapers had been looming since ME1 and Shepard asking Vigil whether he knew the purpose of the reapers. All ME3 did was bring many questions full circle because we didn't know.

 

Marketing is a subjective medium. When BioWare gave Shepard a recognizable face and a pre-established personality and history in ME1, it was obvious we were more so spectators than actual directors in this experience. I don't believe that's necessarily a bad thing either, as BioWare had more control to craft a truly compelling and memorable experience. That's hard to do when you give too much control to the players, such as with Skyrim where player control is favored over everything else. The only aspect we could really control about Shepard was gender, appearance, and whether he/she was paragon/renegade.

 

Just because players "expect something" doesn't mean the developer should implement it. If all game developers ever did was develop games that players "expected," there would never be innovation and evolution in the industry. I don't believe a boss battle was necessary, and certainly who would have been the "bad guy" would you defeat? The last ten minutes of ME3 were really about understanding the true purpose of the reapers and what it all meant. That is why we were in dialogue, because that's really the main point of a BioWare game. We engage in dialogue where your choices change the outcome of events. Maybe if we were just sitting there and didn't do anything, I might agree with you. The fact we had the conversation wheel and were actively participating in discussions with TIM, Anderson, and the Catalyst? There more than plenty of interactivity.

 

As I said earlier BioWare had a plan. They always do. Some people just didn't agree with it, and that was largely because of confusion and lack of context. What is a double-edged sword for ME3's ending is that it doesn't make sense on its face, but once you read between the lines and connect earlier events in the game to the end, you start to see the entire picture. The only thing I believe BioWare should probably do, if they want to avoid criticism in the future, is make their storytelling more transparent and basic, since ME3 flew over the heads of many of those who complain and criticize it.

[SimonTheFrog]

What do you mean by "The Catalyst was literally introduced the opening moments of the game"? Do you believe the boy in the vents was not simply a boy? You make it sound as if the catalyst crawled through the vents or make Shep "see" boys crawling through vents (for what purpose?).

 

I would argue that the boy-in-the-vents scene was a poignant reminder for the old and new players that human suffering may occur if Shep fails her mission. But i mean everything is open for interpretation to some degree and i will not argue for or against any of this.

 

You are right that a developer can ignore player's expectations. I mean it's a free world, the devs can do whatever the heck they please. But the question is, which expectations are there for a good (or at least understandable) reason and what good comes from ignoring them? I believe that making the player physically "earn" the finishing cutscene (not by boss battle necessary but by something) is a great way to end a game as it makes the player feel like he achievement something significant. Since the catalyst just handed his army over to shep unconditionally und unprovoked after shep literally collapsed onto the floor ready to die and the player did nothing other than click through a couple of questions he simply can not get the feeling of having physically "earned" the triumph of solving the conflict. It was handed to him for free for obscure plot reasons (i still don't know why the catalyst thought that his "solution" didn't work anymore because a Shep walzed in and then collapsed in the room beneath the catalyst).

 

Just imagine how it would have felt if all the allies you gathered stormed in and helped you fight for that red, green and blue button. A glorious union of friends from all corners of the universe fighting to gain control over that one piece of technology that can change everything. And then, the last barrier is down and shep can choose to take over control, destroy or melt with the reaper machines... wow.

Well, i would liked that at least
 

I'm sorry, it may be a clevery intertwined and well foreshadowed plot (i would argue against that but lets just say it may), but i still feel that a lot of the criticism that ME3 had to endure was related to that missing sense of achievement.

[Revan Reborn]

What do you mean by "The Catalyst was literally introduced the opening moments of the game"? Do you believe the boy in the vents was not simply a boy? You make it sound as if the catalyst crawled through the vents or make Shep "see" boys crawling through vents (for what purpose?).

 

I would argue that the boy-in-the-vents scene was a poignant reminder for the old and new players that human suffering may occur if Shep fails her mission. But i mean everything is open for interpretation to some degree and i will not argue for or against any of this.

 

You are right that a developer can ignore player's expectations. I mean it's a free world, the devs can do whatever the heck they please. But the question is, which expectations are there for a good (or at least understandable) reason and what good comes from ignoring them? I believe that making the player physically "earn" the finishing cutscene (not by boss battle necessary but by something) is a great way to end a game as it makes the player feel like he achievement something significant. Since the catalyst just handed his army over to shep unconditionally und unprovoked after shep literally collapsed onto the floor ready to die and the player did nothing other than click through a couple of questions he simply can not get the feeling of having physically "earned" the triumph of solving the conflict. It was handed to him for free for obscure plot reasons (i still don't know why the catalyst thought that his "solution" didn't work anymore because a Shep walzed in and then collapsed in the room beneath the catalyst).

 

Just imagine how it would have felt if all the allies you gathered stormed in and helped you fight for that red, green and blue button. A glorious union of friends from all corners of the universe fighting to gain control over that one piece of technology that can change everything. And then, the last barrier is down and shep can choose to take over control, destroy or melt with the reaper machines... wow.

Well, i would liked that at least
 

I'm sorry, it may be a clevery intertwined and well foreshadowed plot (i would argue against that but lets just say it may), but i still feel that a lot of the criticism that ME3 had to endure was related to that missing sense of achievement.

That's exactly what I am saying. Shepard is hallucinating. Ever question why nobody else sees the boy? Anderson doesn't. Ash doesn't. Shepard is constantly confronted by this boy when he is on Earth and in his dreams. The boy wasn't real. The boy was a symptom of Indoctrination and Shepard's uncertainty and doubt in his ability. Trust me, everything that occurred in ME3 happened for a reason. There weren't random events thrown into the game without an explanation.

 

The ending of ME3 is not as clear cut and dry as you make it. What you "see" is not necessarily what is "happening" and thus your conclusions don't necessarily match up with the reality. What I will say is that Shepard's strong will allowed him to defy Indoctrination, and the Catalyst recognized this. The Catalyst wasn't necessarily "exterminating" the races of the galaxy, but converting them into "reapers" to maintain order and stability. Shepard proved he was different from the rest, and thus the Catalyst was forced to recognize Shepard had the power to shape the future.

 

There's plenty of fan service in the Citadel DLC if that's what you actually want. The ME3 story is a different kind of beast.

[Heimdall]

That's exactly what I am saying. Shepard is hallucinating. Ever question why nobody else sees the boy? Anderson doesn't. Ash doesn't. Shepard is constantly confronted by this boy when he is on Earth and in his dreams. The boy wasn't real. The boy was a symptom of Indoctrination and Shepard's uncertainty and doubt in his ability. Trust me, everything that occurred in ME3 happened for a reason. There weren't random events thrown into the game without an explanation.
 
The ending of ME3 is not as clear cut and dry as you make it. What you "see" is not necessarily what is "happening" and thus your conclusions don't necessarily match up with the reality. What I will say is that Shepard's strong will allowed him to defy Indoctrination, and the Catalyst recognized this. The Catalyst wasn't necessarily "exterminating" the races of the galaxy, but converting them into "reapers" to maintain order and stability. Shepard proved he was different from the rest, and thus the Catalyst was forced to recognize Shepard had the power to shape the future.
 
There's plenty of fan service in the Citadel DLC if that's what you actually want. The ME3 story is a different kind of beast.

The ME3 story is a patchwork mess filled with nonsensical and hamfisted plot points, I seriously doubt the level of planning you suggest went into it. Frankly I don't believe the ME writers have the sort of subtlety you ascribe to them.

But I guess when two people see a splattering of paint one will see a mess and the other will claim its modern art.

[fyz306903]

 

I see it as being reversed. There was never player agency in the Mass Effect trilogy. It wasn't until the final decision in ME3 that we actually were making a choice that wasn't confined by BioWare's storytelling and the pre-established Shepard. People didn't know how to handle it and as a result heavily criticized the ending because of the difficult moral dilemma where everybody couldn't be saved and not having that happy paragon ending where everybody wins.

This. The main criticisms I see of ME3's ending as whole is 'It wasn't happy enough' or 'there weren't enough sacrifices'. I'm beginning to think Bioware rushed a compromise ending with 3 'variations' to make them seem different.

This made it haphazard with a lot of plot holes and satisfied neither the 'happy ending' or 'bittersweet' crowds. What I think should have happened is that there should have been two distinct endings (with no synthesis or control options, or starchild):

1. A dark, gritty bittersweet ending where many characters and possibly Shepard sacrifice themselves to destroy reapers and

2: A lovely feel-good 100% happy ending where hope prevails and against all odds, Shepard and his crew fight and destroy the reapers. 1. Can end with a tear-inducing funeral scene, 2 could end in a tear-inducing Citadel DLC-style party. 

Make these two endings cleverly use past choices/EMS/reputation etc. to judge what type of player is playing the game and what ending they'd probably prefer, then everyone's happy. I would have preferred a set up like that, anyway. 

Finally, this would also make the set up of a direct sequel to ME4 much easier, with only 3 major variables: either Shepard and his crew get a couple of cameos/mentions or they don't., and the same for the Rannoch/Genophage choices. 

[ByTheCode]

I absolutely LOVED Halo 4, one of the best Halo games I've played in a while. I'd be sort of interested in looking into ME4 now, but still wary of it.

[Nitrocuban]

If some other writer keeps that Halo 4 dude on a short leash he might write some good stuff for ME4.

With too much artistic freedomz it might just get another iteration of COD in space like all Halo games have been so far.

[SNascimento]

While they are at it, they could also bring Halo 4's composer, the music in that game is amazing. And I didn't even play it. 





Just don't forget to bring Sam Hulick back too.

[goishen]

This. The main criticisms I see of ME3's ending as whole is 'It wasn't happy enough' or 'there weren't enough sacrifices'. I'm beginning to think Bioware rushed a compromise ending with 3 'variations' to make them seem different.

This made it haphazard with a lot of plot holes and satisfied neither the 'happy ending' or 'bittersweet' crowds. What I think should have happened is that there should have been two distinct endings (with no synthesis or control options, or starchild):

1. A dark, gritty bittersweet ending where many characters and possibly Shepard sacrifice themselves to destroy reapers and

2: A lovely feel-good 100% happy ending where hope prevails and against all odds, Shepard and his crew fight and destroy the reapers. 1. Can end with a tear-inducing funeral scene, 2 could end in a tear-inducing Citadel DLC-style party. 

Make these two endings cleverly use past choices/EMS/reputation etc. to judge what type of player is playing the game and what ending they'd probably prefer, then everyone's happy. I would have preferred a set up like that, anyway. 

Finally, this would also make the set up of a direct sequel to ME4 much easier, with only 3 major variables: either Shepard and his crew get a couple of cameos/mentions or they don't., and the same for the Rannoch/Genophage choices. 

 

Well, remember when the game first came out?

 

At first it was...    "What happened to all of the other races?"  Then BioWare started working on the EC.  By then, the indoctrination theory had started, etc.  So, it wasn't just Shepard's story.  It was everybody else's story too.  But, they're kind'a not the point of Shepard's life.  Yet, people want their stories to go on.  And on.  And on. 

 

It's a symptom of good writing.  Not bad, as people would have you believe.

[Revan Reborn]

This. The main criticisms I see of ME3's ending as whole is 'It wasn't happy enough' or 'there weren't enough sacrifices'. I'm beginning to think Bioware rushed a compromise ending with 3 'variations' to make them seem different.

This made it haphazard with a lot of plot holes and satisfied neither the 'happy ending' or 'bittersweet' crowds. What I think should have happened is that there should have been two distinct endings (with no synthesis or control options, or starchild):

1. A dark, gritty bittersweet ending where many characters and possibly Shepard sacrifice themselves to destroy reapers and

2: A lovely feel-good 100% happy ending where hope prevails and against all odds, Shepard and his crew fight and destroy the reapers. 1. Can end with a tear-inducing funeral scene, 2 could end in a tear-inducing Citadel DLC-style party. 

Make these two endings cleverly use past choices/EMS/reputation etc. to judge what type of player is playing the game and what ending they'd probably prefer, then everyone's happy. I would have preferred a set up like that, anyway. 

Finally, this would also make the set up of a direct sequel to ME4 much easier, with only 3 major variables: either Shepard and his crew get a couple of cameos/mentions or they don't., and the same for the Rannoch/Genophage choices. 

Yep. The problem many have is that the ending wasn't clear cut and dry like ME1 and ME2. The major ending points for both were paragon/renegade choices and I believe people expected the same treatment with ME3. I personally preferred how ME3 turned out, but ironically people didn't want player agency at all so they could have their predictable and preferred ending based on their Shepard's personality. I think the ending would have been underwhelming, disappointing, and far too safe if "Destroy" was the only option and success would be based on your personality and how much you completed the game.

 

While they are at it, they could also bring Halo 4's composer, the music in that game is amazing. And I didn't even play it. 





Just don't forget to bring Sam Hulick back too.

Neil Davidge is an impressive composer. He did a phenomenal job with Halo 4, although it still doesn't compare to Marty O'Donnell's work with Halo. Don't forget Jack Wall as well.

[SNascimento]

Neil Davidge is an impressive composer. He did a phenomenal job with Halo 4, although it still doesn't compare to Marty O'Donnell's work with Halo. Don't forget Jack Wall as well.

I think it's easier to forget my name than the person that created "Suicide Mission". I'd love to have him back, but the way he left felt final to me for some reason.

Anyway, I like Jack Wall:

[fyz306903]

Yep. The problem many have is that the ending wasn't clear cut and dry like ME1 and ME2. The major ending points for both were paragon/renegade choices and I believe people expected the same treatment with ME3. 

That's a great point! Many people seems to have wanted a complex ending that takes into account all of your actions and choices etc. But I don't think this is a problem, my main gripes with the ending are the lack of closure and the fact that the 3 choices are so undeveloped. If Bioware had given proper closure to every former squad mate (even if it was a picture of them with TV series-style scrolling text!), explained the endings better and given proper variations of the 3 choices.

e.g. 'Good' refusal (Reapers defeated conventionally based on EMS) 'Destroy where only the reapers get destroyed' Bad ones as well like: 'Control which fails because Shepard isn't strong enough' etc. 

If these three things had been fully fixed in the EC, I think most people would have been happy. 

[Revan Reborn]

That's a great point! Many people seems to have wanted a complex ending that takes into account all of your actions and choices etc. But I don't think this is a problem, my main gripes with the ending are the lack of closure and the fact that the 3 choices are so undeveloped. If Bioware had given proper closure to every former squad mate (even if it was a picture of them with TV series-style scrolling text!), explained the endings better and given proper variations of the 3 choices.

e.g. 'Good' refusal (Reapers defeated conventionally based on EMS) 'Destroy where only the reapers get destroyed' Bad ones as well like: 'Control which fails because Shepard isn't strong enough' etc. 

If these three things had been fully fixed in the EC, I think most people would have been happy. 

That expectation seemed like an unrealistic and impossible goal to reach if people really wanted every choice in the trilogy to impact the ending. What people should have expected, on the contrary, is that it was a culmination of all your choices that allowed you to get to that final point.

 

I believe the Citadel DLC really brings closure to all of the companions. It's something the base game was criticized for lacking and is considered one of BioWare's best DLCs.

 

I would have been disappointed if the entire military force of the galaxy could defeat the Reapers. What would have been the point to building the Crucible if you just had to unite all the species? That would have made the story less compelling, in my opinion.

 

I really do understand why BioWare wanted morally ambiguous choices with no clear cut answers. They really wanted players to sit there and question what they were doing, rather than just picking the obligatory paragon choice or renegade choice had it popped up. People wanted player agency and that's exactly what they got with the endings, and no choice was perfect.

 

It was a Herculean effort to try and bring one of the greatest stories ever told in video games to a proper close. BioWare didn't want to cheapen the experience by doing something safe or predictable. They wanted to really make this as emotional and impactful a story as they possibly could. It had mixed results, but I personally appreciated what they did.

[We'll bang okay]

While they are at it, they could also bring Halo 4's composer, the music in that game is amazing. And I didn't even play it. 





Just don't forget to bring Sam Hulick back too.

how dare you leave out Arrival