16 réponses à ce sujet

[adembroski]

I'm going to be frank here; if DA:I disappoints the way DA2 and ME3 did, nothing on Earth will make me buy ME4. I'll be done with Bioware and EA entirely. Having worked for EA during the ME3 controversy, I already know how their culture works... I'm hoping against hope that somehow they learned their lesson from that. I doubt it, but they're getting one more chance because DA:I looks solid so far.

I have tons I'd like to say, but since this is the opening salvo of this thread, I'm going to keep it fairly short. I'll elaborate later when for those sticking around in the thread. But ultimately, here's what I really want from an ME4. Cover these, and I'll stick around for 5.

*** Internal Consistency!

In Mass Effect, the QEC is "extremely expensive and difficult to produce", as well as having "extremely limited bandwidth" and "exclusively point-to-point.

By Mass Effect 3, it's ubiquitous.

Unless you're prepared to explain this ridiculous advance in technology over the course of several months between games, please remain true to the original vision that made sense. Mass Effect is more akin to Star Trek than Star Wars, we need this consistency to maintain suspension of disbelief.

*** Remain true to themes!

This is the greatest downfall of the ME3 ending... it abandoned the themes that had carried the story through the first 89 hours and 50 minutes of the experience. In fact, nearly all of the ending options even in the extended version undercut those themes.

If you want an ending that asks us to resolve some existential crisis between humans and organics, then have that be the theme throughout. The ONLY ending true to the themes of Mass Effect was the worst ending: the one that picks up 50k years later with the uncovering of the data by the next cycle. Even that felt more like a middle finger from the writers than a real ending, even though it was ironically the most satisfying. If _felt_ like going down fighting, which is better than every other option.

*** Remain true to your roots!

Bioware made it's name with games like Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate. You're a role-playing game developer. Stop trying to be something else.

Yes, Mass Effect had 3rd Person Shooter elements. The lens through which I experienced the RPG was, indeed, a TPS... but it was an RPG despite this. ME3's attempt to minimize story elements, all but taking control away from us as far as who Shepard was in the 3rd game is a little talked about failure.

There was a lot more wrong with ME3 than the ending... but it gets lost in the enormity of how bad the ending was. The lack of dialogue choices... Yes, I'm well aware the majority of these were the illusion of choice. It doesn't matter... I should have the option anyways. Shepard should never have spoken a word in response to an NPC without my go ahead, period. You tried to move more toward TPS and away from RPG, and THIS was ultimately a greater failing than the ending.

*** Quality over quantity!

Mass Effect 2 did not have a lot of endings. It had a lot of ways the climax could go down, and that was very cool, but it didn't have 60 endings. It had pretty much 2... Shepard's dead, or Shepard's alive. Mass Effect had 1 ending. Only 1.

Those two games had vastly superior endings to anything in ME3, regardless of how they went down. While I'd LOVE to have another ME2 style climax with hundreds of paths to the same point, what's important is that they fit into the story. DON'T try to blow me away with some crazy twist at the end. A SATISFYING ending is FAR more important than a SHOCKING ending. If it's utterly predictable but satisfying within the context of the game, it's a success.

Thank you.

EDIT: Keeping it short fail... TL:DR version- ME4 Dev Team, pretend you're making ME2.5, not ME4.

[Revan Reborn]

I feel I should point out that the ME team has changed significantly. What was originally the KotOR team that moved on to make ME is hardly the same. The leadership developers and writers have either left or moved on. We are looking at an entirely new team and while the universe and certainly the choices from ME1-3 will have an impact on MENext, I doubt there will be very much in common otherwise. All we do know is that the game will have an exploration-driven experience similar to ME1. Combat? Dialogue? Themes? We'll just have to see where this new story takes us. It's going to be a whole new direction for Mass Effect.

[Vazgen]

ME4 Dev Team, pretend you're making ME2.5, not ME4. 

Wait, really? 

Mass Effect 2 has the weakest storyline of all three games. Mass Effect 2 has almost non-existent character building capabilities. Mass Effect 2 changes the protagonist, who goes from being a career military guy to some space Dirty Harry who works for a terrorist organization. Mass Effect 2 makes Cerberus a galactic-wide force that can do more than the Alliance. 

Mass Effect 1 introduced the "genetic essence" of the species that flew in the face of the scientific bases of the universe. Mass Effect 1 made Sovereign play Mortal Kombat with Shepard using Saren hopper. Mass Effect 1 character building capabilities are on par with ME2, perhaps even less.

 

I love playing Mass Effect games, all three, even today. But that doesn't mean that I'm oblivious to the problems that every game of the trilogy has. So, I'd rather have them consider all three games when making Next Mass Effect. 

[goishen]

That's why, I think, it was the most popular.  Because it was an ex-military person.  Because the person was working for the enemy.

[Vazgen]

That's why, I think, it was the most popular.  Because it was an ex-military person.  Because the person was working for the enemy.

Nah, I think it's because of the characters. Squadmates like Mordin, Grunt, Jack and Garrus (evolved version) really save the game. The game was built on character interactions, it paid little to no attention to the theme and ideas of the previous game

[Coming0fShadows]

The story in ME1 and ME2 was never strong, it was there as an excuse to get you out roaming around space and get lost in all that stuff. With ME3 they seemed to have forgotten that and tried to rely on a story that was never even attempted to be developed. (hence huge plot issues)

[MrFob]

Mass Effect 1 introduced the "genetic essence" of the species that flew in the face of the scientific bases of the universe

Sorry if this is off topic but can I ask: Where does ME1 introduce this? It's a serious question on my part. I ahve seen you mention this twice today and I honestly can't think of a moment in ME1, where this comes up. Can you let me know? Cheers!

[Vazgen]

Sorry if this is off topic but can I ask: Where does ME1 introduce this? It's a serious question on my part. I ahve seen you mention this twice today and I honestly can't think of a moment in ME1, where this comes up. Can you let me know? Cheers!

Shiala dialogue after killing the Thorian if I'm not mistaken. Someone posted a video of that exchange recently.

[MrFob]

Shiala dialogue after killing the Thorian if I'm not mistaken. Someone posted a video of that exchange recently.

Just listened to it again. She never mentions genetics in that conversation. The cypher is (as I always interpreted) not genetic but simply a way to think, to perceive things. That's what I always thought was so cool about it actually, it's just a different way to conceptualize things, link experience with memories and emotions, etc.. Genetic markers only came up with Javik AFAIK (although I may be forgetting things) and that is total nonsense.

Anyway, this is very much off topic. We can create a topic in the ME1 story section and discuss it further if you like. I always thought the cypher was a pretty cool concept, worthy of some analysis and discussion.

[Vazgen]

Just listened to it again. She never mentions genetics in that conversation. The cypher is (as I always interpreted( not genetic but simply a way to think, to perceive things. That's what I always thought was so cool about it actually. Genetic markers only came up with Javik AFAIK (although I may be forgetting things) and that is total nonsense.
Anyway, this is very much off topic. We can create a topic in the ME1 story section and discuss it further if you like. I always thought the cypher was a pretty cool concept, worthy of some analysis and discussion.

I'll find the source and send it to you tomorrow, it's 5AM here now and I'm on a phone Or I can make a thread if you want. What do you prefer?

[MrFob]

I'll find the source and send it to you tomorrow, it's 5AM here now and I'm on a phone Or I can make a thread if you want. What do you prefer?

I'll  make a thread in the ME1 story forums. As I said, I think it's an interesting enough topic. Good night.

 

EDIT: Link

[adembroski]

what does &nbsp mean? im pretty dense tbh

That's a formatting issue. Ignore it.

[BioWareM0d13]

Mass Effect 3 had the best story of the three games. It just had the misfortune of also being paired with the worst ending of three. If not for that ending the game would be a lot more popular than it is.

[adembroski]

Wait, really? 

Mass Effect 2 has the weakest storyline of all three games. Mass Effect 2 has almost non-existent character building capabilities. Mass Effect 2 changes the protagonist, who goes from being a career military guy to some space Dirty Harry who works for a terrorist organization. Mass Effect 2 makes Cerberus a galactic-wide force that can do more than the Alliance. 

Mass Effect 1 introduced the "genetic essence" of the species that flew in the face of the scientific bases of the universe. Mass Effect 1 made Sovereign play Mortal Kombat with Shepard using Saren hopper. Mass Effect 1 character building capabilities are on par with ME2, perhaps even less.

 

I love playing Mass Effect games, all three, even today. But that doesn't mean that I'm oblivious to the problems that every game of the trilogy has. So, I'd rather have them consider all three games when making Next Mass Effect. 

You're not wrong... but despite the isolated problems, I felt ME2 was greater than the sum of its parts. ME3 was not... I just...

I dunno, I just want ME3 to go away:P I was disappointed in a lot of ME2, but then at the end of the day, it got more rotation than ME1 or ME3, and frankly, I got the greatest enjoyment out of it of the three. If I had to pick my favorite, I'd say ME1, but I'd almost be wondering if I was lying to myself. 

That said, I'll admit one of the things I loved about ME2 was one of the things many people complained about: the episodic structure. Where one might view ME1 as a film in game form, ME2 would be much more akin to a season of a television series in game form, and I really liked it that way. 

[KaiserShep]

I actually enjoy the episodic structure of ME2. Where it becomes a real problem for me, however, is the overarching plot line and how it doesn't really feel like much of anything was accomplished to deal with the reaper threat. Even if the human reaper could pose a significant threat with nothing but a Collector ship or two to complement it, it's irrelevant with the fact that the rest of the reaper fleet is soon to arrive anyway.

 

That said, where I ultimately found myself invested the most was the heroic rescue of the Normandy crew. It's just too bad that the way we got to this point was kind of silly with the abduction itself.

[ZipZap2000]

Gotta agree that without that ending ME3 comes really close to trumping ME2. With the right ending and a little more content (time to expand on existing content?) it would've ripped ME2 to pieces. Side missions that ask you to scan a planet instead of going on an actual mission are a good example.