15 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

And by "big" I'm referring to Mac Walters' sales pitch for the game and the content in the final product. He kept talking about how ME3 was "All the biggest moments, the biggest decisions but it also had to mean something". A nice intent but I think it's a bad way of going about things to want everything to be "big" and then come up with a reason for it to be that way. All story and plot should arise from the logic of the world and its characters, not the other way around IMO.

 

A lot of ME3, right off the bat, was straight outta Michael Bay movies. The writing was full of dumb platitudes and edgy talk, the scope was big and the explosions were dominant too and everything seemed overblown compared to either ME2 and ME1. I hope I don't speak only for myself when I say I expect more subtlety in ME4 akin to how ME1 and ME2 went around things.

 

Even the "good" parts of ME3 like Cure The Genophage were subpar IMO because flat-out curing the genophage by contrived means AKA the Shroud and "The Mother of ALL Thresher Maws ~ Kalros" was also overblown and unlike stuff I had seen in ME1 or ME2. When ME1 was big it didn't kill my suspension of disbelief. ME3 constantly did and I hope Bioware will step away from making these overblown and teenage moments.

 

DA:I also had some of this too much, like the Ball mission which had a "world-altering decision" at the end that determined the future of Orlais in many ways... I just... I don't need things to be so obvious and unrealistic. At worst they paint your protagonist as a Mary Sue and I think Bioware can do better.

[Element Zero]

Yeah, much of the writing in ME3 was below par In comparison to BioWare's past work. I agree that even the popular sections of the game had a lot of forced scenarios (Tali joining the Normandy, Legion's silly demise, and so on...)

I think we saw the Michael Bay-effect in full force because ME3 was the finale. The Reapers had arrived, and the galaxy was at war. They were a bit heavy-handed at times, and very good at others. I expect the next game will start out with far fewer explosions.

I'm honestly expecting his game will start out as some sort of exploratory mission that stumbles upon some potentially bad stuff. It's a simple scenario that we've seen before, and it works. They could go in a completely different direction, of course, but I think his is one possible way to immediately recapture that vast, unexplored frontier feeling I loved about Mass Effect. We've only seen parts of Council Space and the Terminus Systems. In their totality, those areas make up about 1% of the Milky Way, according to past codex entries. Space is huge! I look forward to exploring some of that other 99%.

[Vazgen]

ME3 was too big in scope for its time and resources available. I think it'll still be the case for ME:Next. 

Overall, in my experience, the bigger the story, the less you get a personal stake in it. Threatening to destroy a virtual world is not that emotionally engaging as direct threat to the characters you grow attached to. ME3 did it right by forcing some squadmate deaths (right in the idea, not execution, only Mordin's was truly necessary) but I don't think something similar can be pulled off with an entirely new game with new characters whom we are yet to know. You have to want to stop the enemy, not spend time scanning planets. In that case ME3 did the best job but it did so by virtually removing the need for exploration (which fits the narrative quite well).The only way I can think of how a big, galaxy-threatening antagonist can work alongside big focus on exploration is a hidden antagonist when you spend about 60% of the game trying to figure out who he/she/they is/are. In fact, Cerberus could've been such an antagonist but instead they became Reaper tools. They had been presented like that in ME1. Big story can work, big enemy threat like that in Transformers, is quite a cliché for video game genre.

[Arcian]

Big story or small story, what matters is the execution. The scope of the story has no bearing on the difficulty of the execution - that is entirely a matter of the skill of the developers.

[Vazgen]

Big story or small story, what matters is the execution. The scope of the story has no bearing on the difficulty of the execution - that is entirely a matter of the skill of the developers.

Larger story requires more resources for a quality experience. Developer skill can only take you so far.

[Rusted Cage]

ME3 was too big in scope for its time and resources available. I think it'll still be the case for ME:Next. 

Overall, in my experience, the bigger the story, the less you get a personal stake in it. Threatening to destroy a virtual world is not that emotionally engaging as direct threat to the characters you grow attached to. ME3 did it right by forcing some squadmate deaths (right in the idea, not execution, only Mordin's was truly necessary) but I don't think something similar can be pulled off with an entirely new game with new characters whom we are yet to know. You have to want to stop the enemy, not spend time scanning planets. In that case ME3 did the best job but it did so by virtually removing the need for exploration (which fits the narrative quite well).The only way I can think of how a big, galaxy-threatening antagonist can work alongside big focus on exploration is a hidden antagonist when you spend about 60% of the game trying to figure out who he/she/they is/are. In fact, Cerberus could've been such an antagonist but instead they became Reaper tools. They had been presented like that in ME1. Big story can work, big enemy threat like that in Transformers, is quite a cliché for video game genre.

Well said Vaz. I think this illustrates the issues a few folks still have with ME3 and the problems of making something epic in scope yet also emotionally intimate. As the end of a trilogy, i think ME 3 managed this balance really well - after all, how much character development can you expect in the last game of a trilogy? Yet the character interactions on the Normandy between missions  both drove the end-game narrative and delivered believable characterizations. In the end it feels as though one is fighting to defeat the Reapers and to defend the people you care about. I'm not sure I agree with it being too big for it's time, maybe too poorly managed in parts. The Tuchanka arc is truly the standout example of what could have been achieved in that it ties all 3 games and decisions. Why the rest of the game wasn't the same is beyond me.

[Vazgen]

Well said Vaz. I think this illustrates the issues a few folks still have with ME3 and the problems of making something epic in scope yet also emotionally intimate. As the end of a trilogy, i think ME 3 managed this balance really well - after all, how much character development can you expect in the last game of a trilogy? Yet the character interactions on the Normandy between missions  both drove the end-game narrative and delivered believable characterizations. In the end it feels as though one is fighting to defeat the Reapers and to defend the people you care about. I'm not sure I agree with it being too big for it's time, maybe too poorly managed in parts. The Tuchanka arc is truly the standout example of what could have been achieved in that it ties all 3 games and decisions. Why the rest of the game wasn't the same is beyond me.

I talked about it being too big for its time because of hardware limitations of the old generation consoles. You couldn't have large scale battles without reaching the memory limit and Priority Earth, for example, suffered for it. Notice how many people we have on the screen at any given time. The number will be quite low. Next gen consoles allow for more memory, see Assassin's Creed Unity crowds for example. And now imagine Priority Earth when you fight hordes of Reaper troops with your allies fighting alongside you. Geth, quarians, salarians, krogan, turians, asari fight with you against vastly superior numbers of enemy Reaper troops. That would've been an epic conclusion. Instead we go with our two-man squad and look at some gif of soldiers running in the background (Example).

[Linkenski]

I was mostly referring to the overblown scenes in the game, like the intro with Shepard getting thrown around and sliding down exploding buildings, facing down a reaper in front of it on Rannoch, turrets and more explosions and that's not to mention the artsy crap with the child and dreams, but the point is I dislike how unsophisticated Mass Effect 3 feels -- something directly caused by its Michael-Bay type style.

 

I guess I'm saying you can make it big in scope without making it feel so overblown and dumb.

[Vazgen]

I think the Rule of Cool will always be present in games, it makes playing them fun. Imagine Mass Effect 3 portrayed realistically. It'll be depressing and not fun. Explosions, cool moves like grabs from behind cover, combat rolls etc. - all that makes combat sequences fun. I doubt the trilogy could've worked with more realistic approach, with the villains it had. It may be possible in ME:Next (I hope) and we'll have more grounded gameplay (biotics with no projectiles, tech powers not using hand gestures, no more magically summoning fire from omni-tool or transfer health with biotics...). Looking at Dragon Age Inquisition... I have doubts

[Linkenski]

Mass Effect 2 had lots of rule of cool, that didn't bother me. But ME3 was just blown way out of proportion in its key moments. The intro and the climax of Tuchanka and Rannoch as well as the Citadel was just obviously appealing to teens who think Transformers is the greatest movie ever. I think Michael Bay bigness has its place in movies and all that, but I wish it hadn't influenced Mass Effect so much because ME1 and ME2 had moments that I'd call "big" but they were handled with more subtlety and respect for its genre.

 

I just feel like the gap in style between ME1/2 to ME3 is too jarring. I know a lot of people think ME2 is when the series changed but I always felt like ME2's continuity to its predecessor felt real but in ME3 it's almost like a reboot at times with the nonchalanty towards choices of ME1 and 2, fans and the change in style. (or lack of Drew K)

[Rusted Cage]

I talked about it being too big for its time because of hardware limitations of the old generation consoles. You couldn't have large scale battles without reaching the memory limit and Priority Earth, for example, suffered for it. Notice how many people we have on the screen at any given time. The number will be quite low. Next gen consoles allow for more memory, see Assassin's Creed Unity crowds for example. And now imagine Priority Earth when you fight hordes of Reaper troops with your allies fighting alongside you. Geth, quarians, salarians, krogan, turians, asari fight with you against vastly superior numbers of enemy Reaper troops. That would've been an epic conclusion. Instead we go with our two-man squad and look at some gif of soldiers running in the background (Example).

Ha, that looks terrible! One Mako trundling along does not a war make!

 

I think the Rule of Cool will always be present in games, it makes playing them fun. Imagine Mass Effect 3 portrayed realistically. It'll be depressing and not fun. Explosions, cool moves like grabs from behind cover, combat rolls etc. - all that makes combat sequences fun. I doubt the trilogy could've worked with more realistic approach, with the villains it had. It may be possible in ME:Next (I hope) and we'll have more grounded gameplay (biotics with no projectiles, tech powers not using hand gestures, no more magically summoning fire from omni-tool or transfer health with biotics...). Looking at Dragon Age Inquisition... I have doubts

I see that as like a flash-produced thermite sphere with a protected guidance chip in the center, all held together via electromagnetism.

 

Mass Effect 2 had lots of rule of cool, that didn't bother me. But ME3 was just blown way out of proportion in its key moments. The intro and the climax of Tuchanka and Rannoch as well as the Citadel was just obviously appealing to teens who think Transformers is the greatest movie ever. I think Michael Bay bigness has its place in movies and all that, but I wish it hadn't influenced Mass Effect so much because ME1 and ME2 had moments that I'd call "big" but they were handled with more subtlety and respect for its genre.

 

I just feel like the gap in style between ME1/2 to ME3 is too jarring. I know a lot of people think ME2 is when the series changed but I always felt like ME2's continuity to its predecessor felt real but in ME3 it's almost like a reboot at times with the nonchalanty towards choices of ME1 and 2, fans and the change in style. (or lack of Drew K)

It's interesting you choose those two missions, Tuchanka and Rannoch, as examples of ott rule of cool where I see those two missions as examples of ME3 getting it right. The out of proportion rule of cool moments in the game for me are Kai Leng's moments on the Citadel and Thessia and his damn plot armour throughout.

 

I think ME2s continuity to it's predecessor is the worst in the series. To me it feels almost completely disconnected at times, plus hugely contrived - such as Shepard's death and reincarnation just to solve a gameplay problem.

[Linkenski]

I certainly think Tuchanka and Rannoch were the best parts of ME3 too, but I don't think they "got it right" because there was still too many conveniences that were introduced as contrived as possible like Kalros being the "Mother of all thresher maws". Remember ME1? Yeah, lots of Thresher Maws on random planets. Now, you're telling me that on Tuchanka... a huge-ahz planet, and on ONE small site of the planet where the Shroud was located the mother of ALL thresher maws in Mass Effect is? Not necessarily "rule of cool" but that was just so convenient it ruined the Cure the Genophage mission in my book.

 

But totally, the Cerberus Coup and other main missions were much worse.

[Rusted Cage]

I certainly think Tuchanka and Rannoch were the best parts of ME3 too, but I don't think they "got it right" because there was still too many conveniences that were introduced as contrived as possible like Kalros being the "Mother of all thresher maws". Remember ME1? Yeah, lots of Thresher Maws on random planets. Now, you're telling me that on Tuchanka... a huge-ahz planet, and on ONE small site of the planet where the Shroud was located the mother of ALL thresher maws in Mass Effect is? Not necessarily "rule of cool" but that was just so convenient it ruined the Cure the Genophage mission in my book.

 

But totally, the Cerberus Coup and other main missions were much worse.

 In KotOR there was a giant shark called the Progenitor whom the Selkath saw as their ancestor or something. So Kalros worked for me because there was that sort of idea echoed, that Bioware staple of having repeating themes within their games. It felt familiar, faintly nostalgic and therfore cool to me.

 

This could be a lot of my issues with ME3 - why does everything have to be new? Like, I would have warmed to Javic and that entire "Last Prothean in a stasis pod" concept if his name was Ksad Ishan. It would have wrapped up a loose end nicely and seemed as if the idea had been forshadowed from the start. If only the Crucible had something to do with Dark Energy I may have believed that idea wasn't deus ex machina.

 

Back to Kalros, I never believed her to be the literal mother of all maws anyway. I simply believe the Krogan believe that. Doesn't Garrus have a line of dialogue which sort of reflects that sentiment?

[Linkenski]

Well, maybe he does, but I also ended up headcanoning it that way, but at first I took it on face value and I was dumbstruck as to why it hadn't been foreshadowed before the mission. I didn't like it because it literally solves the whole mission for you and it comes out of nowhere.

[Rusted Cage]

Well, maybe he does, but I also ended up headcanoning it that way, but at first I took it on face value and I was dumbstruck as to why it hadn't been foreshadowed before the mission. I didn't like it because it literally solves the whole mission for you and it comes out of nowhere.

To be fair the Maw Hammer concept was introduced in ME2 so it's not entirely a blue sky concept.

[Linkenski]

I don't dislike the maw hammers though and I don't completely dismiss the idea of a thresher maw being the key to solving the mission, but the problem is there was no mention of Kalros before the mission even though they know the place has maw hammers and that there's a big reaper destroyer blocking the access to the Shroud facility. I think the reveal of Kalros when you're walking around in the tombs comes off as super contrived and way too convenient. All they had to do was mention the posibility earlier on or not dub it "the mother of all thresher maws" because that really hurt my suspension of disbelief.