So your theory is that, by making choices reset to canon after every game, our choices will have a greater impact... somehow... what?
No...I'm saying without handcuffing the decision tree to a sequel/import system, it allows for the choices you make to have a bigger impact on the narrative at hand.
No...I'm saying without handcuffing the decision tree to a sequel/import system, it allows for the choices you make to have a bigger impact on the narrative at hand.
^
Though I personally wouldn't prefer this. One of my favorite aspects of Mass Effect is the story import, no matter the cost involved for it.
No...I'm saying without handcuffing the decision tree to a sequel/import system, it allows for the choices you make to have a bigger impact on the narrative at hand.
It sounds like you want to have a big, world-shattering effect on the game you're currently playing, in exchange for the next game possibly saying "nope, none of that happened."
Sorry, that doesn't sound like any impact at all, to me.
In regards to importable world states, and reflecting player choice, the best way to handle this and try to appease both sides (IMO) is to stop giving the player world altering decisions.
Letting Shepard decide the fate of all Quarians everywhere, or deciding to enact Synthesis on the entire galaxy was a mistake. Not because of the question of whether these plot points are good or bad, but because in giving players such far reaching decisions effectively creates two separate universes, one where Shepard killed the Quarians and enacted Synthesis or one where Shepard did not. Keeping the scope of the narrative small allows the player to have control over the course of a game without completely altering the setting that it is based in.
Instead of giving Shepard the power to decide the fate of the Council and then just replacing them with carbon copies in the third game, make it so that the Council survives regardless, but the amount of Alliance support (or lack there of) would color their relationship with Shepard over the course of the trilogy. The player still gets to make a choice and have it reflected in the narrative without completely trivializing their choices.
It sounds like you want to have a big, world-shattering effect on the game you're currently playing, in exchange for the next game possibly saying "nope, none of that happened."
Sorry, that doesn't sound like any impact at all, to me.
"world-shattering" effect? I never suggested that. I said that a standalone game is capable of having a more branching narrative, consequently having a greater impact on the setting the story takes place in and the characters who occupy it.
You seem to think every story needs to be continued. What if the next crews adventure is never heard by the outside world? All loose ends and plot threads tied up. Creating sequels just for the sake of creating sequels as well as cashing in on fan service, can often backfire and come off as obnoxiously forced and contrived.
It sounds like you want to have a big, world-shattering effect on the game you're currently playing, in exchange for the next game possibly saying "nope, none of that happened."
Sorry, that doesn't sound like any impact at all, to me.
If Dragon Age 3 branched out and allowed the player to
the impact would be playing through the game and experiencing the different content for those choices.
What impact has the save import provided anyways? Here are your emails, codex entries, and cameos now we proceed with the story we wanted to tell anyways.
"world-shattering" effect? I never suggested that. I said that a standalone game is capable of having a more branching narrative, consequently having a greater impact on the characters and the setting the story takes place in.
You seem to think every story needs to be continued. What if the next crews adventure is never heard by the outside world? All loose ends and plot threads tied up. Creating sequels just for the sake of creating sequels as well as cashing in on fan service, can often backfire and come off as obnoxiously forced and contrived.
While I agree that stand-alones could individually provide more branching narratives, sequels offer more than just fan service. They give characters like Mordin and Liara the chance develop and integrate deeper into the story.There's also a certain novelty which the import function provides that I just like. Even if the variance is slim, the thought that my character is moving throughout a trilogy is somewhat appealing.
I can see the benefits of either course, and I wouldn't mind which way BioWare went.
The Mass Effect trilogy was the story of one person and their fight to stop the Reapers. Despite the disappointing results, the save import fit well with the idea of a single protagonist and plot arc across the games.
We don't know if ME4 is going to be a start of a new series like the trilogy or like Dragon Age with a new protagonist and story in each game. If it is the latter I don't think having a save import would fit very well.
Liara was a completely different person (it was rather jarring) and Mordin wasn't quite himself (which may or may not be a result of the new VA and/or someone new penning the character). I didn't say fan service was the only thing sequels offer. I was suggesting that creating a sequel to a story that has already reached its resolution for nothing more than cashing in on fan service is not encouraged. If a narrative has been tied up completely, a sequel would seem forced and lend itself to such motivations.
I can understand your sentiment. I'm just not in favor of the import system unless they can go beyond mere cosmetic changes to the narrative and shallow cameos for characters who can live or die in previous installments.
You seem to think every story needs to be continued. What if the next crews adventure is never heard by the outside world? All loose ends and plot threads tied up. Creating sequels just for the sake of creating sequels as well as cashing in on fan service, can often backfire and come off as obnoxiously forced and contrived.
Sure, if the sequels don't involve the people or places from the previous game, then the save import has no purpose. But so far, no Mass Effect or Dragon Age game has been designed that way. We'll see if Next is any different.
But if you ask me, designing each individual game's plot in such a way that nobody in the universe knows about the outcome sounds a lot more contrived.
If Dragon Age 3 branched out and allowed the player to
- defeat the antagonist
- join forces with him
- or replace him in his scheme
the impact would be playing through the game and experiencing the different content for those choices.
What impact has the save import provided anyways? Here are your emails, codex entries, and cameos now we proceed with the story we wanted to tell anyways.
Your answer pre-supposes that none of that was part of the story that they wanted to tell anyway. I reject the idea that the devs are somehow burdened by including previously-met characters who remember our decisions. You don't think that they get (almost) as attached to them as we do?
I think Bioware wanted Cerberus to be a morally grey organization but throughout the trilogy they seemed more like mad scientist with their experiments back firing on them really badly.
I think it would have better if they had done more with Shepard having to work with evil as a morally ambiguous situation instead of trying to make Cerberus into something they didn't really fit. The attempts to whitewash with rogue cells and subordinates blowing off TIM just made them look incompetent.
I don't think their ME3 handling was good either. Revealing them to be traitors in the first 15 minutes isn't very interesting (surely this could have been better as a late game twist) and a different course with the writing probably could have built up to a Control ending better as well.
Sure, if the sequels don't involve the people or places from the previous game, then the save import has no purpose. But so far, no Mass Effect or Dragon Age game has been designed that way. We'll see if Next is any different.
But if you ask me, designing each individual game's plot in such a way that nobody in the universe knows about the outcome sounds a lot more contrived.
There's billions, if not trillions of beings in the galaxy. To suggest that any of their own personal adventures are more likely to become galactic news and common knowledge rather than not being heard at all, is what's contrived.
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
Cerberus getting indoctrinated isn't a stretch in any way whatsoever. They've always experimented with sketchy stuff. Once they got their hands on Reaper tech, odds of **** hitting the fan were even more likely than when they were experimenting with Thorian creepers.
yeah and then they somehow became a galactic army (see ME3)? lol
I didn't mind that Cerberus was our enemy but they were overused as hell just so we have something other than the reaper troops to fight
they are everywhere in ME3 even though it doesn't make sense (Surkesh anyone? Tuchanka Bomb mission?) they are almost more important than the freaking reapers in ME3 and just turned into generic villians
its ridiculous
I barely consider Cerberus a galactic army. An army, in the galaxy, okay, but its reach was very limited. It just knew how to attack in very precise and tactical ways. Then, for the most part, leave.
Yes, I'm including Omega here. That place was disorganized as hell and it looked like the only reason why the Council Races didn't destroy it was because there was a value in putting so much of the scum in one place.
The threat of ME3 Cerberus wasn't that they could occupy or destroy major planets (even Benning was more of a Smash and Grab, and Eden Prime lacked defenses), but that they could attack anywhere without warning and kill your leader and their staff, and swipe a datapad with more info to advance their particular plans. No threat of them directly rivaling any major military, even one occupied by Reapers.
It was Bioware's problem that we fought them over 1/2 the game, when it properly should have been 1/4-1/3.
Maybe Bioware should have also made clearer that with the Reaper tech and personal upgrades from that tech, Cerberus was pretty much filled with near supersoldiers. Just near super soldiers that still couldn't stand up against Shepard, his allies in concert with each other, and N7 groups that were fighting for their survival, not just because a voice in their head told them to.
EDIT: Oh and I found it weird how little 'indoctrinated agents' mattered in ME3. We have lots of implications of things (like refugees being part of the Reaper takeover of the Citadel at the end?), but few clear examples outside of Cerberus and that one Asari. Hmm. :S
NPCs feel like living beings and not static audio-logs disguised like humanoids. I'm seriously getting sick of it. In ME1 and ME2 it wasn't such a big deal because fewer NPCs standing around were actually talking but in ME3 and DA:I more NPCs are having conversations and sometimes they stand in the middle of a room and then it really starts to feel annoying when they're practically solid walls and they just stand there compeltely stiff.
It feels like window dressing and it doesn't make it feel more alive unless they make NPCs a bit more dynamic or at least make them move if you walk into them. I think instead of that marker that indicates whether you can interact or something, they should go with the Half-Life idea of having an interact button that can just be used in context but without clearly indicating "this is interactive, this isn't", because when it's like that it feels extra mechanical and that's not doing bioware any favors.
Well someone didn't follow the story...
Cerberus was converting civilians into Cerberus troops by using Reaper tech.
"But how'd they get SO MANY!!??"
Hi Sanctuary.
And we have to be aware that it is likely that Shepard faced a great deal of the Cerberus forces himself, and only himself. Either because Shepard runs into them in mostly understandable places, or their interests coincide (which isn't so far fetched given TIM's mirrored goals with Shepard).
I think they were laid on too thick, but the concept of them having a converted army was one of the better parts of the Cerberus story in ME3, IMO.
NPCs feel like living beings and not static audio-logs disguised like humanoids. I'm seriously getting sick of it. In ME1 and ME2 it wasn't such a big deal because fewer NPCs standing around were actually talking but in ME3 and DA:I more NPCs are having conversations and sometimes they stand in the middle of a room and then it really starts to feel annoying when they're practically solid walls and they just stand there compeltely stiff.
It feels like window dressing and it doesn't make it feel more alive unless they make NPCs a bit more dynamic or at least make them move if you walk into them. I think instead of that marker that indicates whether you can interact or something, they should go with the Half-Life idea of having an interact button that can just be used in context but without clearly indicating "this is interactive, this isn't", because when it's like that it feels extra mechanical and that's not doing bioware any favors.
Bioware seems stuck in the 2000s with this stuff. ME1, fine. ME2, fine. DAO, fine. DA2, fine-ish. ME3, ugh, okay. DAI, really?
They can do better than this and I hope they do!
Your answer pre-supposes that none of that was part of the story that they wanted to tell anyway. I reject the idea that the devs are somehow burdened by including previously-met characters who remember our decisions. You don't think that they get (almost) as attached to them as we do?
I was just using that as an example of how I felt that big choices could have an impact in one game even if BioWare chose a canon for the next game.
While I think the save import is restrictive to a degree, the biggest factor is probably just that BioWare isn't interested in going beyond more than superficial consequences.
Its pretty obvious that Bioware clearly wanted to make Cerberus a morally grey organization, but their depiction in the trilogy (as a whole) and EU ended up making them look evil instead of them being morally grey. The morality system in the trilogy doesn't help either as its very arbitrary removing it would be a massive improvement.I think it would have better if they had done more with Shepard having to work with evil as a morally ambiguous situation instead of trying to make Cerberus into something they didn't really fit. The attempts to whitewash with rogue cells and subordinates blowing off TIM just made them look incompetent.
It sounds like you want to have a big, world-shattering effect on the game you're currently playing, in exchange for the next game possibly saying "nope, none of that happened."
Well, the second game would be saying something more like "that happened, but not to this world's Shepard." It's conceptually not much different from replaying the game and making different choices.
I understand, but giving a player choice and then later saying that they made a totally different choice is the same as giving them no choice at all.
Even both choices having effectively the same outcome, as has happened in Bioware games before, is better than just erasing the choice altogether.
If a game doesn't acknowledge a choice made in a previous installment, it doesn't mean that you never made the choice. It just might have no connection to the narrative at hand.
So your theory is that, by making choices reset to canon after every game, our choices will have a greater impact... somehow... what?
Well it's not like they have a great impact now, since everyone has to be zeroed out for the next game anyway. Any choices you make end up being largely cosmetic.
But without save transfers, that opens up the freedom for choices to have greater significance within the game it's being made in. The next game is a different story. Let it stand on its own.
Retour en haut
