275 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

I'll always keep comparing the ends of ME3 to the end of Dexter (Showtime TV series).   Why?   Well, because both times people thought they were excellent series' up until the very end which decidedly ruined them for most viewers/players.  

 

I'll talk mostly about the ending of Dexter here, seeing as that's the one that I know the most about.  The ending was very symbolic for me.  Letting Deb go in the ocean surrounded by a white sheet symbolizing her innocence indicated, to me at least, that Dexter was letting go of all the good things in his life that he had ever, and would ever, know.   The place where he buried bodies.  The place where he lost the only thing that mattered to him by a rival.  By somebody that he had on his table.  And by somebody that he let go.  Then, once he does kill his rival, the police witness it (one of Dexter's last days of work)...    They say, "Looks like a clean kill to me."   "This piece of **** needed to die."   When you can obviously tell that if either of them were in their correct mind's, they wouldn't have felt this way.  They were too overcome with emotion with Deb's death and vengeance.  And who better to exact that vengeance than her brother?

 

Now, I know that ME3 isn't Dexter.  However, you can still respect the decisions that ME3 did by looking at it through the the Dexter lens.  I'm not saying you have to agree with it.  But at least god damned respect it.

ME3 felt more like St Elsewhere's ending than Dexter's

[goishen]

ME3 felt more like St Elsewhere's ending than Dexter's

 

 

Actually, St. Elsewhere's ending came at the cost of a story that Rob Lowe told Demi Moore to save her life.  So, I'm not really really seeing the comparison. 

 

EDIT :  I'm sorry, I thought you meant St. Elmo's Fire.

 

 

My mistake.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

The mass effect universe deserves to be explored further, a shame they had to end it in such a bad way in the 3rd one. I was really dissapointed in the story and characters of inquisition, Bioware should realise they will never get skyrim numbers and just focus on what they do best instead of trying to skyrimize their games.

People don't buy Bioware games to recieve a sub-par bethesda experience. I just hope the writers at Bioware Montreal aren't hetero male-hating SJW's like gaider seems to be...

 

I have no faith in the lead writer to give us a compelling story. But I can't make a judgement on his writing yet since I haven't personally played Halo 4, but I've heard the story is pretty bad.

The problem with Bioware trying to "skyrimize" their games as you put it is this is a thing that has been going on for generations. Diablo. How many spin offs or clones of that game do you think are branded onto every hack and slash game that ever comes out? World Of Warcraft?. Same thing.

 

The problem as I see it isnt making open world games/sandboxes for people to play in, it's getting people to not say the exact stuff you just said. Any game can be compared to any other just because they share the same features, but the real trick to getting people to like someones version is that unique spin one puts on their brand.

 

If Bioware can pull off great story telling and realistic characters in an open world scenario then why shouldnt they? If they copied Skyrims idea and made it better then good cos it was an awesome Idea to begin with it just lacks the finesse that Bioware gives it.

[goishen]

The problem with Bioware trying to "skyrimize" their games as you put it is this is a thing that has been going on for generations. Diablo. How many spin offs or clones of that game do you think are branded onto every hack and slash game that ever comes out? World Of Warcraft?. Same thing.

 

The problem as I see it isnt making open world games/sandboxes for people to play in, it's getting people to not say the exact stuff you just said. Any game can be compared to any other just because they share the same features, but the real trick to getting people to like someones version is that unique spin one puts on their brand.

 

If Bioware can pull off great story telling and realistic characters in an open world scenario then why shouldnt they? If they copied Skyrims idea and made it better then good cos it was an awesome Idea to begin with it just lacks the finesse that Bioware gives it.

 

Well, here I think you're talking about furthering along the future generations of games to come.  If you think about it, Half Life spawned BioShock, plus a plethora of other FPS games that actually told a story.  Now, whether that story is good or bad, that can be debated.  But they still told a story.  Even BioShock Infinite, and what a pedantic piece of **** that was. 

 

Now, I have no problem with the Skyrimazation of the world of ME, as long they do it well.  DAI, IMO, didn't do it well.  It did it for sure, but well?   Ehhh, I'm thinking not.

[Display Name Owner]

For me ME has always been much bigger than Shepard. Shepard and his/her story has always been kind of... just there, I guess. Hell, even the Reapers were 'just there', hanging around being evil. ME never truly felt like it was all about them. What made the MEverse rich was all the other characters, their stories and the worlds.

 

On the other end, there's something like the Witcher. The Witcher is Geralt's tale - there are kings, knights, mages, etc. but Geralt is at the core of the entire series. Without him it would be something else. 

 

So to me, Shepard and everyone else we've met through him being gone is fine. The galaxy of ME has so much stuff going on in it that has nothing to do with Shepard, or Liara, or The Illusive Man. To disregard that because our cool but honestly bland protagonist is gone would be ridiculous imo.

[Element Zero]

I'm not that excited for the new ME because the ME Trilogy is already my favourite game
still I'm hoping for a nice side adventure with lots of exploring with the mako I doubt the characters will be as awesome as in the previous games
its also evident with DA:I that Bioware is moving towards more open world and while I enjoyed the game the characters and story definitely suffered

I'm in agreement on all points but one. The characters can be every bit as good the next time around. Have you played KotOR, Jade Empire, the DA series, etc... They all have amazing characters. Others will say the same regarding their earlier PC games I didn't play or mention.

BioWare has not lost the ability to write characters who end up feeling like friends. I think they peaked in this series, likely because we played as the same PC throughout. We were really invested in Shepard's relationships because they were really our relationships. We were there from the beginning, and we played them through to the end, over the course of 5 years. The writers also really got to explore these characters. Look at how much Garrus grows, for instance.

Even for the characters with whom we had more limited time, like Thane and Legion, we were still thinking of them between ME2 and ME3, and we felt it when they were lost. Those recruitment and loyalty missions in ME2 were huge, in terms of character development. They are an awesome feature I hope to see again, in some form.

[Lyrandori]

Isn't that ironic?

 

Mass Effect was Shepard's story... but Shepard's story was Mass Effect. I will say it again and do mark my words: it's not like DA, we've had Shepard for so many years, the next "Mass Effect" game won't "feel" the same without him/her. Now, of course "the same" won't happen it's obvious since Shepard is gone, but that's exactly my point. Will the next ME be a good game? Well you know what? Possibly, but it will be a good action game. It just won't be "Mass Effect". Just because you have big sci-fi cities and alien space station doesn't mean it's going to "be like ME".

 

Oh but, wait... we'll have Krogans and Salarians... there, problem solved, that's the kind of thing that distinguishes ME from the "rest" isn't it. Ah and of course, there's going to be a nice "N7" badge on the shoulder of my new protagonist's combat suit, therefor I'm going to be just as meaningful as Shepard. In fact I'll be awesome. Oh and of course Liara being Asari and all, could be old but still alive, isn't she symbolizing the very essence of ME? Sure she does! Shepard had nothing to do with Mass Effect I mean c'mon guys, we're all delusional at this point.

 

So do I want another "ME"?

 

Sure, but ME4 won't be that which I'm hoping for. But... sure it'll be a nice action game with the Mass Effect label on the box.

[Element Zero]

Haha, fair points. The trilogy is definitely Shepard's story, and Shep is my favorite game hero of all time by far. Still, the setting is what lured me in, long before I had time to fall in love with Shepard. (I still remember that moment when we first defeated Sovereign. I knew ME was to be a trilogy, but not whether Shep would return. I was holding my breath, waiting for Shep to come climbing out of that wreckage like a boss!)

If they stay true to the established lore, building upon it, rather than lazily retconning features they find inconvenient to their new ideas, the next game can be just as great. BioWare has made a lot of great games with great characters. I hopeful that the next one will be another. The setting and core gameplay are already in place. As long as they balance those two things appropriately, I think they'll do well. After all, know they can write characters.

[Rittmeister64]

a.) And about all your choices, they do matter. It's not because you don't see every single one of them that they don't matter.

 

b.)) I guess some Reapers are just more arrogant than others. Each Reaper has a different personality (we've seen it from Sovereign, Harbinger and that Destroyer on Rannoch).

 

c.) And the Catalyst appears as the kid from Earth because it manifested itself as something Shepard would understand. Why it chose this form? I don't know, maybe because seeing that kid die impacted Shep. And why would he not trust it? What other choices does he have? He's at the Crucible, the thing they've been building to defeat the Reapers, the 3 options are there and the Catalyst only explains them.

 

d.) - TIM wanted to use the Reapers for humanity only. He wanted to make Humans superior by using the Reapers. Shep might change his idea of Control because now it's fully explained and he undestand eveything he could achieve for the galaxy.

 

e.)  You're talking like the Reapers are evil and that choosing Synthesis makes them win. Yes, in way, it makes them ''win'' but they're not evil. Synthesis stops the conflict between Organics and Synthetics, which is why the Reapers exist. The Reapers are not evil, they're only doing what they were programmed to do. (And yeah, walking around with Reaperized people is extra creepy.)

 

f.) Loosing the Geth and EDI if you chose Destroy is part of the story. It's a sacrifice. It's part of the choice, accept it. I'm gonna say it again, you're not making the game, you don't decide everything.

 

a.) nobody expects that eating a cheeseburger or a hamsandwich matters in the end, but making peace between the Geth and the Qarians should matter, but the Genocide that Bioware commits against the Geth in the Destroy ending basically made your success in ending a 300+ year long war OBSOLETE. That's what pissed people off.

 

b.) Each reaper has a different personality? That totally contradicts that Starkid is running the whole show and the reapers are HIS TOOLS. Also, synthetics are supposed to operate with linked AI, not as individuals. Yes, I know the bullshit story from Walters that they're harvesting civilizations to "keep their essence", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. I doubt Leonardo Da Vinci can recognise his Mona Lisa in the human reaper... Total bull...

 

c.) I can tell you why the Starkid is there - because Walters with his b-grade writing skills thought ripping the creepy kid from the Silent Hill videogames would be a great idea. Also stop pretending he gives you choices. A choice is by definition something I decide for myself, not standing before the headsman and chose death by axe, sword, or just getting your arms chopped off. The catalyst also does not "explain" them. He (aka Mac Walters) simply LIES to you when he says "synthetics will always kill organics". It's a fantasy from bad sci-fi writers.

 

d.) nope, control would never work. Shepard gets killed and a copy of his "brain" gets uploaded into a computer. That's not Shepard anymore at all. It has no soul and could simply go crazy over time. Also, Imagine the Shepard-AI would get destroyed (asteroid striking the Citatel, sabotage, etc...) the reapers would be set lose again...

 

e.) the reapers ARE evil. Please, don't tell us that a Holocaust on Galactic level can be justified by any dumb ass theory from a retarded AI. Even if it would be true that synths always kill all organics - if the AI and the reapers weren't evil they could easily come up with a better method of "harvesting" all the people that doesn't include a 100+ year long brutal and disgusting war, terrifying organics, turning them into abominations, etc... So there's no way in hell you can say they're not evil. You have heard about euthanasia - basically letting old people die in peace instead of prolonging their suffering when they are terminally ill, now what the reapers are doing is - instead of euthanasia, where you just unplug their life-support machines, or give them meds, so they can peacefully fall asleep and die, you impale grandpa on spikes, lock him into a container to liquify his guts, etc, all at full conscious level and with the knowledge he'll die a horrible painful torturous death.

Not EVIL at all, right?

 

f.) loosing the Geth is not a sacrifice, it is bad writing, just as when J.R.R Tolkies would have ended the Lord of the Rings by telling Frodo: "hey, you can defeat Sauron, but this will kill all the Dwarves in Middle-Earth." The ending just makes no sense and is crappy literature.

[KrrKs]

About Mass Effect being Shepard's story and Shepard's story being ME:

The same has been said in the 80s, when it was decided that the next Star Trek series was not about Kirk and Co.

In the end, 'The Next Generation' turned out a lot better than the original ever was.*

 

*Of course this is the opinion of someone who basically grew up with TNG (sort of).

Also TNG had the benefit (and burden) that the original creator was still abort for a long time.

[Booth]

it always felt like a one time thing

 

Played more than 1.000 hours ME (more than 10 times parts 1 & 2 - and a little less part 3) - FOR ME not one second the games/world felt like it wouldnt work without shepard or his crew. Not one single second.

[dreamgazer]

A new protagonist without Shepard's baggage is one of MEWhatever's biggest selling points. Let him/her rest, and offer us a new perspective.

[CaIIisto]

Shepard was a great character. Largely because of the way you were able to shape him/her and the relationships that you forged with the rich cast of characters.

Well presumably you'll be able to shape your new character in a similar way to how you continually developed Shepard. Further, BW know how to write great characters, they haven't forgotten that overnight, which was evident in ME3, with its new characters, and in DAI, where whatever relative faults that game might have, characters are not one of them.

I loved Shepard's trilogy and I really hope they manage to bottle lightning for a second time, but realistically, until we know much more about the new game, we're all just guessing, so we probably shouldn't deal in quite so many absolutes.

[goishen]

Isn't that ironic?

 

Mass Effect was Shepard's story... but Shepard's story was Mass Effect. I will say it again and do mark my words: it's not like DA, we've had Shepard for so many years, the next "Mass Effect" game won't "feel" the same without him/her. Now, of course "the same" won't happen it's obvious since Shepard is gone, but that's exactly my point. Will the next ME be a good game? Well you know what? Possibly, but it will be a good action game. It just won't be "Mass Effect". Just because you have big sci-fi cities and alien space station doesn't mean it's going to "be like ME".

 

Oh but, wait... we'll have Krogans and Salarians... there, problem solved, that's the kind of thing that distinguishes ME from the "rest" isn't it. Ah and of course, there's going to be a nice "N7" badge on the shoulder of my new protagonist's combat suit, therefor I'm going to be just as meaningful as Shepard. In fact I'll be awesome. Oh and of course Liara being Asari and all, could be old but still alive, isn't she symbolizing the very essence of ME? Sure she does! Shepard had nothing to do with Mass Effect I mean c'mon guys, we're all delusional at this point.

 

So do I want another "ME"?

 

Sure, but ME4 won't be that which I'm hoping for. But... sure it'll be a nice action game with the Mass Effect label on the box.

 

 

This is also one of my fears. 

 

That it'll just feel "meh".  Ya know, not good, not bad.  Just, meh. 

 

I'm thinking, read as vehemently praying, that because we have known that Shepard was gonna be gone for so long now that it'll make it that much easier.  Will it?  Only time will tell.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Isn't that ironic?

 

Mass Effect was Shepard's story... but Shepard's story was Mass Effect. I will say it again and do mark my words: it's not like DA, we've had Shepard for so many years, the next "Mass Effect" game won't "feel" the same without him/her. Now, of course "the same" won't happen it's obvious since Shepard is gone, but that's exactly my point. Will the next ME be a good game? Well you know what? Possibly, but it will be a good action game. It just won't be "Mass Effect". Just because you have big sci-fi cities and alien space station doesn't mean it's going to "be like ME".

 

Oh but, wait... we'll have Krogans and Salarians... there, problem solved, that's the kind of thing that distinguishes ME from the "rest" isn't it. Ah and of course, there's going to be a nice "N7" badge on the shoulder of my new protagonist's combat suit, therefor I'm going to be just as meaningful as Shepard. In fact I'll be awesome. Oh and of course Liara being Asari and all, could be old but still alive, isn't she symbolizing the very essence of ME? Sure she does! Shepard had nothing to do with Mass Effect I mean c'mon guys, we're all delusional at this point.

 

So do I want another "ME"?

 

Sure, but ME4 won't be that which I'm hoping for. But... sure it'll be a nice action game with the Mass Effect label on the box.

 

Shepard as a character really wasn't all that relevant to the series. He's a dull player insert and that was his primary contribution.

 

The next game can easily and most likely will have another such avatar as the main character so nothing is really lost on the protagonist front.

[ImaginaryMatter]

maybe your Shepard was dull but not mine 

thats the point of RPG protagonists sure they don't appear to be as complex as say TLoU's Joel or AC's Ezio BUT there is more of a connection

to him/her because you can make decisions that shape the character, his past, his relationships, how he is as a human being, his morals etc.

 

definitely my favourite video game protagonist

 

Exactly, that doesn't make him a character. Shepard doesn't have depth to him, he doesn't go through any kind of arc; his motivations and ideals are largely left to the player.

 

It's easy to make those kind of connections with a main character player insert. Give him a background and dialogue prompts, and you have a protagonist who as just as connected to the player. All you really miss is nostalgia.

[GalacticWolf5]

a.) nobody expects that eating a cheeseburger or a hamsandwich matters in the end, but making peace between the Geth and the Qarians should matter, but the Genocide that Bioware commits against the Geth in the Destroy ending basically made your success in ending a 300+ year long war OBSOLETE. That's what pissed people off.

 

b.) Each reaper has a different personality? That totally contradicts that Starkid is running the whole show and the reapers are HIS TOOLS. Also, synthetics are supposed to operate with linked AI, not as individuals. Yes, I know the bullshit story from Walters that they're harvesting civilizations to "keep their essence", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. I doubt Leonardo Da Vinci can recognise his Mona Lisa in the human reaper... Total bull...

 

c.) I can tell you why the Starkid is there - because Walters with his b-grade writing skills thought ripping the creepy kid from the Silent Hill videogames would be a great idea. Also stop pretending he gives you choices. A choice is by definition something I decide for myself, not standing before the headsman and chose death by axe, sword, or just getting your arms chopped off. The catalyst also does not "explain" them. He (aka Mac Walters) simply LIES to you when he says "synthetics will always kill organics". It's a fantasy from bad sci-fi writers.

 

d.) nope, control would never work. Shepard gets killed and a copy of his "brain" gets uploaded into a computer. That's not Shepard anymore at all. It has no soul and could simply go crazy over time. Also, Imagine the Shepard-AI would get destroyed (asteroid striking the Citatel, sabotage, etc...) the reapers would be set lose again...

 

e.) the reapers ARE evil. Please, don't tell us that a Holocaust on Galactic level can be justified by any dumb ass theory from a retarded AI. Even if it would be true that synths always kill all organics - if the AI and the reapers weren't evil they could easily come up with a better method of "harvesting" all the people that doesn't include a 100+ year long brutal and disgusting war, terrifying organics, turning them into abominations, etc... So there's no way in hell you can say they're not evil. You have heard about euthanasia - basically letting old people die in peace instead of prolonging their suffering when they are terminally ill, now what the reapers are doing is - instead of euthanasia, where you just unplug their life-support machines, or give them meds, so they can peacefully fall asleep and die, you impale grandpa on spikes, lock him into a container to liquify his guts, etc, all at full conscious level and with the knowledge he'll die a horrible painful torturous death.

Not EVIL at all, right?

 

f.) loosing the Geth is not a sacrifice, it is bad writing, just as when J.R.R Tolkies would have ended the Lord of the Rings by telling Frodo: "hey, you can defeat Sauron, but this will kill all the Dwarves in Middle-Earth." The ending just makes no sense and is crappy literature.

 

Alright this is probably the last time we discuss about this.

 

a.) Losing all the Synthetics is part of the choice. If you can't assume your own choices, that's your problem. If you don't want to do this, chose another ending. No one is forcing you to chose Destroy.

 

b.) Yes, each Reaper has a different personality. The Catalyst only directs them. Also, not all synthetics are linked, only the Geth (well only before they get the Reaper Code). Check your facts before you try to tell people they're wrong.

 

c.) The Catalyst does explain the choices.  And don't say you're forced to pick one, you can refuse to use the Crucible if you want.

 

d.) Shepard doesn't get killed. His corporeal form is dissolved and he becomes the new Reaper master consciousness. So yes, it's stil Shepard. The only thing that changed is that he lost his connection to his kind (the Organics). He's a Synthetic now. He would not go crazy. And he could not be destroyed by the ways you said, here's why: The Citadel is not The Shepard (let's call him that). If the Citadel is destroyed, it would do nothing to him. Plus, Shepard could use the Reapers to destroy whatever is about to destroy the Citadel anyway. Sabotage can't even be considered, The Shepard is the most advanced technology who ever existed, sabotaging The Shepard is not possible with the technology that people have. And let's say that it does happen (it really couldn't), yes the Reapers would be ''set loose'', but what would they do? Nothing. That's right, nothing. They don't have anyone controlling them, they don't have someone to direct them. They wouldn't start the Cycles again because they'd have no reason to. It was the Catalyst who used them for the Cycles, the Reapers are only tools.

 

e.) From the victims' perspective they're evil. From their perspective they're not. They're simply doing what they were programmed to do. For the Reapers there's no war, they have no interest in that. There's only the harvest. That's something that's been said quite a lot. If you think the Reapers were the Catalyst's first solution, you're wrong. You would know about that if you read the text I recommended you to read the other day

 

f.) Again, losing all Synthetics is part of the choice. If you can't assume your own choices, that's your problem. If you don't want to do this, chose another ending. No one is forcing you to chose Destroy.

[GalacticWolf5]

*Sorry, that was a repost*
 

[Element Zero]

I'm not worried that they can't replicate the appeal of Shepard and his crew. They are great at that. That is exactly what BioWare does-- they write great casts of characters. I can't even say ME had the best roster of characters, as much as I love them. Jade Empire and KotOR had phenomenal casts. I'd have gladly continued on for two more games of Henpecked Hou or Jolee Bindo. If they fail to meet this established BioWare standard, it will be a serious black-eye to the new development crew, in my opinion. Failure to write memorable characters is unforgivable for a BioWare team.


I am far more concerned that they will dilute the experience, as we saw with DAI. Three times the gameplay hours requires close to three times the story, as far as I'm concerned. DAI had huge, empty expanses with no story. ME will hopefully end up different; but they've touted the same features on the few occasions they've said anything, so I am a bit worried.

[KaiserShep]

yeah mine too I doubt the new protagonist will beat Shepard

I don't think Shepard is a particularly hard character to beat. Write her/him to say smarter things, retain the ability to be a smartass/hardass and voila. Heck the Inquisitor appeals to me more for the simple fact that she can actually be shown to be educated, and doesn't ask if elves can mate with their own species.