It's easy, just don't put the fate of entire races or the galaxy in the hands of the protagonist. Focus on smaller, more personal issues. Will allow for better character development and won't cause that many problems for the future games.
But no, people will then complain that the game is not "epic enough" 
It's easy, just don't put the fate of entire races or the galaxy in the hands of the protagonist. Focus on smaller, more personal issues. Will allow for better character development and won't cause that many problems for the future games.
But no, people will then complain that the game is not "epic enough"
OTOH, maybe such a game wouldn't leave players with a sense of utter horror at what they had done to the galaxy 
OTOH, maybe such a game wouldn't leave players with a sense of utter horror at what they had done to the galaxy
I don't know what you're talking about 
It's easy, just don't put the fate of entire races or the galaxy in the hands of the protagonist. Focus on smaller, more personal issues. Will allow for better character development and won't cause that many problems for the future games.
But no, people will then complain that the game is not "epic enough"
I'm so sick of beeing the chosen one or saving the entire universe, when did this become a mandatory feture in RPGs?
Besides, when ever i do a side quest it feels pretty much like this
I'm so sick of beeing the chosen one or saving the entire universe, when did this become a mandatory feture in RPGs?
Besides, when ever i do a side quest it feels pretty much like this
It's easy, just don't put the fate of entire races or the galaxy in the hands of the protagonist. Focus on smaller, more personal issues. Will allow for better character development and won't cause that many problems for the future games.
But no, people will then complain that the game is not "epic enough"
pretty much. They'll ****** and moan about the idea of it until they actually experience it. It's odd too, because some of the best games are on the more personal side of the narrative scale. The same people whining about Mass Effect going that route have played and loved games that have successfully done it and they inexplicably cannot connect the dots.
The Last of Us had everybody on its balls (personally I thought it was highly overrated). The Witcher tends to tell a personal narrative amongst significant events as the back drop (and it seems Witcher 3 is about to get even more personal whilst expanding the size of the game world exponentially). Even Mass Effect 2 is a much more personal journey than the other installments of the trilogy (and it seems to be the favorite of the three amongst the majority of fans.)
I don't need to be the space messiah and savior of the entire galaxy all over again. I don't need to be the hero of an epic trilogy which shapes all life for eons as the existence of entire species are at my mercy. Just give me a personal story/self-contained narrative in the fictional universe I know and love. And let me craft and shape my adventure with the help of a ridiculously robust decision tree. Where even seemingly small irrelevant choices have unforeseen consequences later on in the game. Entire acts of the game should be drastically different based on your choices. Enough with the cosmetic crap.
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.
If a particular choice has no connection to the narrative at hand, then what exactly did you gain by losing save imports? Wouldn't it have had no connection regardless?
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.
Look, if I blow up the Milky Way and the next game takes place a month later in Andromeda, okay, no one in Andromeda is even going to know that happened yet, let alone react to it, so there's no reason to import that choice. On the other hand, if I blow up the Earth and the next game takes place a month later on Mars, you're either going to have to acknowledge my choice somehow (I.E. imports) or just retcon the choice, because it will make a difference.
You guys are asking them to drop save imports, but it seems like what you really want is greater story independence between games. I can get on board with that idea, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I don't even mind if things get to the multigalactic scale to be perfectly honest (don't hurt me).
However, NO LONGER can this mean I'm the 'one true singular hope'.
No more of that.
No.
Bad Bioware!
But as a relatively more influential part of an organization that I can place through choices to influence more indirect outcomes?
YUSSSSSSSS
Make me TIM 2.0 with additional Antireaper safeguards please.
Screw Space Messiah - I wanna be Space Lucifer 
Abandoning the save import function is not the way to go with the series. It is one of the unique aspects of the Bioware games that separates them from the rest and it is something that can be a major pillar of their new series if done right.
If they are going to create another series of games then they need to have an at least halfway formulated story to apply to it. Many of the issues with the previous games stemmed from the shift of focus half way through the series. It is especially apparent in how disjointed ME2's story feels from the overarching plot of the trilogy.
I'm impartial to the next protagonist being the savior of the galaxy or the little guy who ends up doing big things unintentionally, but I think one of the main points brought up in this debate, the import system not being utilized properly, stems from poor planning. There was a whole game (ME2) that many of the plot points from ME1 could have evolved or could have had their results shown, but it turned out to be more of a soft reset in the middle of the trilogy rather than a direct continuation. If you do not stick with a coherent story throughout a trilogy you are bound to weaken the import function which is dependent on the growth of most plot points.
The consistency issue needs to be resolved before we place blame on the import function.
Abandoning the save import function is not the way to go with the series. It is one of the unique aspects of the Bioware games that separates them from the rest and it is something that can be a major pillar of their new series if done right.
Agree, even with all the half-assed or ignored resolutions to our choices, being able to transfer the Shep across the games had massive appeal. I hope the New Hero will be like this as well for the next 2/3 games, I don't want new protagonist every game like Dragon Age or Ass Creed are doing now
It's easy, just don't put the fate of entire races or the galaxy in the hands of the protagonist. Focus on smaller, more personal issues. Will allow for better character development and won't cause that many problems for the future games.
But no, people will then complain that the game is not "epic enough"
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.
Abandoning the save import function is not the way to go with the series. It is one of the unique aspects of the Bioware games that separates them from the rest and it is something that can be a major pillar of their new series if done right.
This. Abandoning the save import function would be similar to what they di with exploration in ME2 and ME3. The concept was fine but poorly executed in ME1 so lets scrap exploration in the sequels.
This is not the way to go. The import fuction should continue and should be improved.
While the big decisions like saving the council, the rachni queen and the collector base only had cosmetic consequences, I feel that smaller decisions were handled correctly.
I mean stuff like Raan remembering Legion if you brought to Tali's trial, Jack remembering holding the bubble if she was the biotic specialist or Tali talking about the vents if she was in vents during the Suicide Mission really help to make your experience unique.
Plus who wasn't satisfied with Conrad Verner in Mass Effect 3, when he brings up two relatively smalll side quests from ME1? I definitly was.
Also regarding big choices, I think that the Genophage arc throughout the ME trilogy was handled correctly most of the times. Filled with choice and consequence.
That works fine for me so long as the PC has some stated overall goal or purpose.
My biggest problem with DA2 is the fact that, aside from completing the deep roads excursion and reclaiming the estate, Hawke has no goals. The game includes some fun and interesting quests, but it feels like the character is just reacting to what other people are doing, and has no direction of her own. I played on hour after hour after hour, waiting for the other shoe to drop, for the end goal to be revealed, and it never was. Cuz there isn't any.
I'm fine with the fact that 80% of ME2's content has nothing to do with collectors. You still have that end goal that you're working toward, and I need that in a game.
Agreed. What I was saying is that this goal should not necessarily be "save the galaxy" as it was in every game of the trilogy.
Save game importation forces unnecessary restraints on the narrative and conversely to logic results in less overall choice/deviation thereof.
They are forced to keep track of 1,000s more save state variable / voice acting combinations on top of usual game data which makes development unwieldy and testing so much more complicated and arduous than it needs to be. It's understandable that this approach results in more conservative/cosmetic plot deviation than typical stand alone RPGs which tend to have deeper & more meaningful deviation in choices and consequences partly because of all the extra workload they impose on themselves with these systems arguably to the detriment of the development process and the game.
Bioware need to reinvent/refine not just the series but their development methodology and philosophy - do not repeat the mistakes of the past which precipitated the conditions which lead to the derailment of the series in such spectacular fashion. Keep development simple - don't get bogged down in unnecessary complexity accumulated over the years. Keep the story simple and relatable and grounded in characters. Emphasise the choices you make in this game - don't tie yourself to the titanic and drown under the weight of expectation and promise and give yourself 2 years to do it.
If a particular choice has no connection to the narrative at hand, then what exactly did you gain by losing save imports? Wouldn't it have had no connection regardless?
If the narrative has no connection to previous choices, then a save import is pointless to begin with.
It's interesting how BioWare's strongest aspect can become its Achilles' heel.
Anyway have a proper lieutenant of the big bad, Kai Leng and Collector General were horrible.
But what if implanting themselves with reaper tech was the result of indoctrination, seeing how the collector base was full of reaper tech and the argument for preserving it was to study reapers.
What i'm saying is if our choices mattered, how you deal with the collector base is what would've decided how Cerberus turns out in ME3. But they don't, so they get tech or get indoctrinated from studing some other reaper, or worse if irk. They go back through the Omega relay and scavange through the rubble anyway and get indoctrinated that way making your choice completely pointless.
Cerberus's indoctrination began well before Mass Effect 2 even started. TIM was first exposed to reaper tech in the Evolution Comic, which was before even the first game. It isn't a sudden thing, it is gradual
Cerberus indoctrination was a design choice to give the enemy a face the player could resonate with, rather than some two kilometre long talking space robot. Much as Saren was for the first game. Nonetheless, Cerberus is an interesting thing because it's a Hydra rather than a Snake. EDI clearly explains in ME2 how its split in to autonomous cells. There's no reason why Cerberus couldn't be included in the next ME game. Just because Shepard cut the head off doesn't mean the beast is dead.
Save game importation forces unnecessary restraints on the narrative and conversely to logic results in less overall choice/deviation thereof.
They are forced to keep track of 1,000s more save state variable / voice acting combinations on top of usual game data which makes development unwieldy and testing so much more complicated and arduous than it needs to be. It's understandable that this approach results in more conservative/cosmetic plot deviation than typical stand alone RPGs which tend to have deeper & more meaningful deviation in choices and consequences partly because of all the extra workload they impose on themselves with these systems arguably to the detriment of the development process and the game.
Bioware need to reinvent/refine not just the series but their development methodology and philosophy - do not repeat the mistakes of the past which precipitated the conditions which lead to the derailment of the series in such spectacular fashion. Keep development simple - don't get bogged down in unnecessary complexity accumulated over the years. Keep the story simple and relatable and grounded in characters. Emphasise the choices you make in this game - don't tie yourself to the titanic and drown under the weight of expectation and promise and give yourself 2 years to do it.
#1 reason why this became shuch a bit problem by the end of the series was skipping over ME1 choices in ME2. New squadmates have dozens of exclusive missions and hundreds of cutscenes, yet Ash/Kaidan, Rachni, Council 'resolutions' are as limited in budget and scope as possible. If they provided resolutions or branching content for these choices in ME2 instead of waiting till ME3, the 'pile' of baggage would never accumulate so much. That and of course letting everyone in ME2 die.
Even in ME2 they still were depicted as more mad scientist rather than a morally grey group, overlord and TIM setting up Shepard twice and the fact TIM was more interested in the collector base technology rather genuinly stopping them didn't improve their depiction.You can give them the merit for actually making ME3 Cerberus more like ME1 but personally I think Cerberus was best represented in ME2. It even fits the name Cerberus as Greek mythology better whereas I never really understood why they were named that in ME1 or ME3. It was as if someone had said..." okay, we're making Cerberus the main point of focus for the next game. Let's actually lookat what Cerberus means and make it fit a llittle better"
Cerberus's indoctrination began well before Mass Effect 2 even started. TIM was first exposed to reaper tech in the Evolution Comic, which was before even the first game. It isn't a sudden thing, it is gradual
It's not so much a problem with if it could happen, but when and why.
At the end of ME2 Cerberus clearly did not show signs of indoctrination (at least TIM didn't) so there was little reason for the player to assume that they would turn completely evil, especially if they hadn't read into TIM's history. Even if their betrayal is set a few months after ME2 (technically a reasonable amount of time to become indoctrinated), the change still feels wrong because it's thrust upon us within the first half hour with little explanation. IMO, their indoctrination is too abrupt and artificial.
However, what's more annoying to me is how much better the story could have been had Cerberus not turned. Their being the main enemy took away large swaths of screen time from the Reapers, who clearly needed more time to develop and the moral and political debates surrounding the organization were entirely done away with. There were plenty of interesting themes to explore, but BioWare instead chose to make another moustache-twirling, one-sided villain.
Even in ME2 they still were depicted as more mad scientist rather than a morally grey group, overlord and TIM setting up Shepard twice didn't improve their depiction.
I don't think they're morally grey because they're actually nice underneath. It's pretty well established that their actions can rival the Reaper's in depravity. They're morally grey because they're useful. We all know they're jerks, but they can't stop throwing money at us. It would have been interesting to reconcile their ruthless efficiency with the Council's diplomatic uselessness.
Cerebrus always end up causing more problems instead of solving them, the rachni clones, project overlord and creepers could have nasty implications if Shepard didn't intervene. There is also the problem with the adjutants on omega that turned on their creators so the continual mad scientist experiments ruins any form a grey morality associated with them.I don't think they're morally grey because they're actually nice underneath. It's pretty well established that their actions can rival the Reaper's in depravity. They're morally grey because they're useful. We all know they're jerks, but they can't stop throwing money at us. It would have been interesting to reconcile their ruthless efficiency with the Council's diplomatic uselessness.
If the narrative has no connection to previous choices, then a save import is pointless to begin with.
Yes, which is why it makes no sense to ask for them to remove save import when what you seem to really want is a narrative disconnect.
So just ask for the thing you want, instead of asking for some other thing and hoping that they deliver the thing you want by accident.
Cerebrus always end up causing more problems instead of solving them, the rachni clones, project overlord and creepers could have nasty implications if Shepard didn't intervene. There is also the problem with the adjutants on omega that turned on their creators so the continual mad scientist experiments ruins any form a grey morality associated with them.
True, but they're willing to spend billions to perform a feat of God on Shepard, get him a new ship with leather seats, and continually fund his mission to completion. They're obviously bad people and they have a penchant for breaking everything they touch, but they are undeniably useful.
If nothing else, ME3 shows that Cerberus' evil tactics made them a strong contender in the war. The moral question here is whether or not Shepard can ignore the criminality of the organization and leverage their assets to get the job done (i.e. the renegade mentality).
Retour en haut
