53 réponses à ce sujet

[Valmar]

Oh trust me, people complain about that too. The ending is just a more popular topic. Don't assume even for a minute that you're the first to make this topic. Join the crowd.

 

Though your choices in the first game didn't really matter any in ME2 either so maybe that's part of why it isn't singled out for ME3. Why act like its only ME3 that glossed over our choices?

[Ithurael]

Your choices give you your varied slide show portion of the ending. In addition, they all melt down into a raw score that dictates how the crucible fires.

 

That was the best Bio could do in the limited time they had.

 

I know it isn't good enough but seriously...that is all we get

 

Funny thing is though...when looking at what gives you the war assets (or the war assets themselves) bio thought of nearly every decision we had made in the trilogy...they just didn't have enough time to implement it up to the level they wanted to or promised...

[dreamgazer]

The same reason your choices didn't change Saren's attack on the Citadel and whether the council was held at gunpoint or not.

[CptFalconPunch]

Choices matter only for who lives or who dies.

 

How did saving the council matter in me2 or 3? How did saving the rachni, making anderson councilor matter in me2 or 3.

 

These choices never mattered, ever.

[themikefest]

ME3 is where to start playing the trilogy. Who cares about what happened in the previous 2?

[Alamar2078]

I'm pretty sure I posted earlier today listing those choices and lamenting that none of it really mattered.  The real answer is a combination of poor planning combined with an inability to show EA that more planning/time/resources/etc. would net them a positive ROI.

 

Keeping the number of major decisions to a minimal number [save the Rachni or not ; save the council or not ; save the collector base or not] would be a good first move.  Minor decisions should go more to "reputation" than having a long lasting impact on the series.  Other things that were decisions shouldn't have been decisions so you could keep the number of variables low.

 

The most important [and IMHO missed] part was HOW TO IMPLEMENT those important decisions to make them seem meaningful while still being able to develop a game that doesn't have so many branches that it's impossible to keep up with.

 

For example maybe the Rachni decision is easy ... If you kill the Rachni then they don't appear in ME3.  Replace Rachni troops with plain "goons" that make it easier for you to get through combat.  Perhaps the decision to save or destroy the collector base could be changed -- you either give it to Cerberus OR you give it to the Council --> Either way you still have the base and the knowledge contained ... the only difference is who uses it and for what ends.  With a save the Council maybe you have a much easier time getting military & other resources to commit to the effort vs. the Reapers or to at least retake earth because "you're owed".

 

The above examples may not be good enough but I think they'd at least be do-able in a game if you're smart.

[angol fear]

The big decisions meant something in Mass Effect 3 but not the way expected. Then why this way? If you take a look at the story and at the themes you'll see that Mass Effect always worked this way and you'll find the answer.  

[Rusted Cage]

In defence of choice I think the Krogan and the Genophage plot in ME 3 is one the most intricate and well handled resolutions of the series. That and the Quarian vs Geth plot.

[capn233]

Choice is always an interesting topic with regard to the ME series.

 

It seems to me that the only way to please some people would be if Bioware had actually created an AI that writes the game for you as you play it.  In that sense you would be able to explore a "gameline" that was absolutely unique to all your choices.

 

What would be amusing about such an hypothetical game is that there would probably still be lamentations about how "renegades" are punished with less content.  Also it isn't entirely clear that the choices of a single individual should actually have far reaching consequences, although that would be a central assumption for such a game.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Choice is always an interesting topic with regard to the ME series.

 

It seems to me that the only way to please some people would be if Bioware had actually created an AI that writes the game for you as you play it.  In that sense you would be able to explore a "gameline" that was absolutely unique to all your choices.

 

What would be amusing about such an hypothetical game is that there would probably still be lamentations about how "renegades" are punished with less content.  Also it isn't entirely clear that the choices of a single individual should actually have far reaching consequences, although that would be a central assumption for such a game.

 

I think the problem is the game offers choices that ostensibly should have massive repercussions, but only affect things on the micro level. And the usual way these choices are undone are usually pretty sloppy depending on what choice you made. Blew up a massive bomb on top of a Reaper baby in a black hole infested area? Well... TIM manages to find it largely intact anyway. Killed the Rachni queen? Well the Reapers sow together a new one. I bring up those two examples specifically because it seems as if it would have cost less resources to actually implement. For Reaper baby not having it show up would be less than having different lines for the voice actors, same with the Rachni queen, although I guess you lose Grunt and an entire mission.

[cap and gown]

I am going to take a contrary position: ME3 is the only game in the series where your choices did matter.

 

In ME1 you get four endings, two renegade, one with the council saved, one with the council dead. and two paragon, one with the council saved, one with the council dead. As to real differences, though, there are only really two endings: council dead or not. Besides the ending, almost nothing in the rest of the game depends on your previous choices. There are some constraints on being able to save the colony on Feros, but mostly it has to do with how many colonists you avoid killing. If you get Wrex his family armor, then keeping him alive on Virmire is considerably easier. Other than that, I can't really think of anything that really comes out differently based on your prior choices.

 

Now let's move on to ME2. There is a total of one substantive difference in the game depending on your actions in ME1: Conrad Verner. If you blew him off in ME1 then you will miss out on a discount at a weapon shop on Illium. Everything else amounts to a few dialogue differences, a couple of cameos (Shiala and Giana) and some emails (Han Olar, the Consort, Dr. Michel, etc.) And as far as the ending you get a blue star or red star behind TIM. Of course, the SM itself can lead to some vastly different outcomes depending on your choices; basically who lives and who dies.

 

Now let's look at ME3. Is Conrad still around? If so, did you rescue Jenna from Cora's Den? No? Too bad Conrad, it was nice knowing you. What about Wrex? Is he alive? If he is there is no way to save Mordin/Wiks. What about Maelon's data? Did you destroy it? No? Again, no way to save Mordin/Wiks. Did you sabotage the Genophage? If Wrex is around you are going to have one of the most gut wrenching scenes in the entire series and lose 300 points worth of Krogan support. How did Tali's trial turn out? Is she exiled? Did you rewrite the heretics or blow them up? What about the dispute between Tali and Legion? How did you resolve that? What about Admiral Koris? Did you save him or his crew? Or did you just blow off that mission altogether? Depending on how these decisions were made, Tali may swan dive off a cliff or you will be turning off Legion's flashlight. How about the VS? Did you romance them in ME1? Did you romance someone else in ME2? Did you apologize for "cheating" on the VS (if you did)? What about the Council? Did you save it or let them die? What about Kirahe? What about Thane? Are they dead? Did you visit the VS in the hospital? Depending on the answers to the answers to these questions you may end up being forced to kill the VS during the Coup.

 

One of the things that I really, really love about ME3 is the way our choices in previous games finally meant something more than just a cameo. They actually determined our latitude in making choices in ME3. And it wasn't simply "Paragon wins" either, particularly with the Geth-Quarian dispute where the renegade "kill the heretics" choice was the more optimal choice for achieving peace. So I say: more power to ME3. From my experience with both the ME series and the DA series, it is the only game in the entire BW oeuvre where our choices actually did matter.

[KaiserShep]

Conrad's resolution was the best, because I laughed, and cared.

[Cobwebmaster]

@shepard_343 - Well put! ME3 for me started out as an eagerly awaited finale and ended up as a "Why on earth did I bother buying this!" or "What a wasted opportunity!

While it wasn't exactly the rattlesnake in a lucky dip and there were one or two redeeming bits generally it was like waiting for a new year's firework display crescendo that was launched from a pop gun "Flop!!

[ImaginaryMatter]

I am going to take a contrary position: ME3 is the only game in the series where your choices did matter.

 

My thing is whether consequences have the magnitude suggested by the choices. That's a little weird so I'll give some examples:

 

For ME1 why should any of the choices made in game affect the outcome of the ending? We're basically following in Saren's steps, obtaining information he already had. At most all we really did is kill a fraction of his large supply of troops. Colonists don't mean anything, the Rachni queen goes into isolation, and I doubt he knows who Ashley or Kaidan even are. What is established of Shepard's character is that he's basically a good guy who wants to stop Saren, there's no other way the ending could really end.

 

The ME2 Suicide Mission sort of runs into the opposite problem where choices make sense mechanically but not so much story wise. Like why would someone's clear headedness determine whether or not they survive a bullet? In this case there's choices for the sake of choices, which isn't really any more satisfying.

 

This guy gets into it more, but basically I don't find having choices matter for the sake of choices mattering particularly satisfying. In this case ME1 sort of wins by default. It doesn't have the expectations of importing safe states and could punt the outcome of choices that ostensibly have massive repercussions to other games.

 

The problem I find with ME3, and maybe others to. Is that some of the choices that logically should have large difference really don't. TIM gets the Reaper remains no matter what, the Reapers just make a new Rachni queen, the Council has different voice actors, Mordin ends up with the same new views on the genophage, etc. Some of the other choices like peace on Rannoch have to be partly meta-gamed. That's not to say some of the save import states weren't handled well (Conrad comes to mind) but I think overall the failures are so much more noticeable.

[Iakus]

ME3 is where to start playing the trilogy. Who cares about what happened in the previous 2?

It's the best place to start!

[themikefest]

Conrad's resolution was the best, because I laughed, and cared.

And gets to walk away with the girl. Cool. Go team Conrad. 

[cap and gown]

And gets to walk away with the girl. Cool. Go team Conrad. 

 

He won't get to walk away with the girl in my current playthrough. Poor Conrad probably doesn't even know what's in store for him. Well, at least he will get to be a real hero.

[Aisabel]

Choices matter only for who lives or who dies.

 

How did saving the council matter in me2 or 3? How did saving the rachni, making anderson councilor matter in me2 or 3.

 

These choices never mattered, ever.

Saving the council sort of mattered. When it comes to the games, the choices from 1 and 2 kind of matter, it seems. Like, with the council, I noticed that the new council had a hard time being convinced of anything since I killed them. Despite not effecting the ending, I do believe they slightly matter.

[cap and gown]

ME1 and ME2 were just set up mostly so of course our choices didn't matter in those games (like we only got a teaser of the rachni queen in ME2 if you saved her saying that she will help us)

And you basically just named the Genophage and Rannoch Arc as example for choices mattering and I agree they mattered in those missions 

 

But what about the rest of the game?? Seems like they focused all their time and manpower on those arcs because your other choices meant nothing

 

saving/killing the rachni? lol no we just retcon it and this was the biggest ME1 choice

destroying the collector base or not? too lazy to change things they even kept the human reaper remains around for destroyers

these two big choices were just retconned and it was lazy as hell 

etc. 

 

So thanks for the laugh that in ME3 our choices mattered lol 

And I like Conrad as much as anyone but counting him as choices mattering is just silly

 

First you admit that choices do matter, then you do a 180 and say they don't. get your story straight. They mattered in some cases. They didn't matter in some others. But a flat statement that our choices didn't matter is wrong by your own admission. Just because our choices didn't matter in two cases didn't mean they didn't matter at all.

[themikefest]

The collector base does matter in ME3 though ems has to be below 1750

[Display Name Owner]

The Rachni one was carried over vaguely. But then it wasn't handled in the most satisfying way. But hey, at least what you did affected whether sparing the Queen in ME3 hurt or helped. The Collector Base decision was definitely the most egregious example though, no two ways about it. I guess it had to be that way since Cerberus was such a big issue in ME3, but then that's a whole problem on it's own imo.

 

All told though, they actually did bring a significant amount of variation in ME3 and that should be acknowledged.

[JamesFaith]

 

saving/killing the rachni? lol no we just retcon it and this was the biggest ME1 choice

destroying the collector base or not? too lazy to change things they even kept the human reaper remains around for destroyers

these two big choices were just retconned and it was lazy as hell 

etc. 

 

You have no idea what "retcon" means, do you? You just used it because it is strong and popular word used for criticizing on internet.

 

Retcon is retroactive change or denying of events in story.

 

Did you let rachni queen go? She is alive in ME3 and no retcon here.

Did you kill rachni queen? She is dead in ME3 and Reapers have clone made from genetical material of one of many rachni who escaped in ME1. Again no retcon.

And because there is nowhere explicitly said in ME3 that Collector base was saved/destroyed, again no retcon here.

 

And your choices mattered. There were different dialogues, different cutscenes, War assets based on previous choices and new options based on previous choices.

 

You just weren't satisfied with way how BW implemented consequences of previous choices and rather then admit you don't like, you complain that   "our choices meaning nothing in ME3."

[Ithurael]

<snip>

And because there is nowhere explicitly said in ME3 that Collector base was saved/destroyed, again no retcon here.

 

<snip>

 

Ummm...ya it does...at least if you destroyed the base. It was in the first convo with TIM on Mars.

 

http://youtu.be/Y33Z7GYXSkY?t=1m19s