No. By trivializing them and making their effect a cosmetic/ aesthetic one on the game world.
Which is really no different than ignoring them completly. The point of choice is to make a significant difference in the game, either in story, gameplay, characters or whatever. In the end, in both cases there was little point to giving a choice at all
Which is really no different than ignoring them completly. The point of choice is to make a significant difference in the game, either in story, gameplay, characters or whatever. In the end, in both cases there was little point to giving a choice at all
plenty of reason to give choice in the end. Just not plenty of reason to have a direct sequel to ME3.
plenty of reason to give choice in the end. Just not plenty of reason to have a direct sequel to ME3.
Yep. Which means that even if we stay in the same galaxy, it will still be a side-quel finding every excuse possible to avoid travelling to known regions influenced by the ME3. (that's ignoring the fact that the entire galaxy should be influenced by it, as shown in the ending cinematic, invluding yet-unexplored areas...)
I want there to be a direct sequel, but after that tweet, that there is no canon ending/we take player choices very seriously, I don't think they will even reduce the impact of the ending choices since they said that they take such choices seriously. I don't think they will ever address them. It wasn't just what synthesis did at the technical/biological level, it's that the overall tone of such a galaxy is entirely different than destroy. The people act sort of borgish. They would have to, and I think it is very plausible, have every species rebel against the changes imposed on them by synthesis and somehow removing this change, such that both galaxies would be in the same state as destroy. Ah fu*k I dunno anymore.
Races don't have to be entirely wiped out, but shown in severe decline. Maybe some small populations of geth, quarians, drell, hanar, batarians were located somewhere far away from the crucible's effects. Their dialogue would change to reflect this.
Honestly I would be ok with them trivializing our choice for the end right now. Since they already did by now.
Honestly I would be ok with them trivializing our choice for the end right now. Since they already did by now.
Ugh! What is this infatuation with "choice"? Giving the player plot-altering choices run contrary to developing coherent stories. And the infatuation with choice is what got us the abominations that were "Control" and "Synthesis". Bioware should just bite the bullet and set MENext in a post Destroy universe as that is the only ending consistent with cogent storytelling.
Ugh! What is this infatuation with "choice"? Giving the player plot-altering choices run contrary to developing coherent stories. And the infatuation with choice is what got us the abominations that were "Control" and "Synthesis". Bioware should just bite the bullet and set MENext in a post Destroy universe as that is the only ending consistent with cogent storytelling.
I am all for the choice while within the story, within plot, choices like allowing geth to live or to die, choices like curing the genophage. Keeping your squaddies alive, getting more EMS by certain choices.
But choices that kick the chair from under the whole story just to actually have choices. that is not good.
Ugh! What is this infatuation with "choice"? Giving the player plot-altering choices run contrary to developing coherent stories. And the infatuation with choice is what got us the abominations that were "Control" and "Synthesis". Bioware should just bite the bullet and set MENext in a post Destroy universe as that is the only ending consistent with cogent storytelling.
Ugh! What is this infatuation with "choice"? Giving the player plot-altering choices run contrary to developing coherent stories. And the infatuation with choice is what got us the abominations that were "Control" and "Synthesis". Bioware should just bite the bullet and set MENext in a post Destroy universe as that is the only ending consistent with cogent storytelling.
No.
They run contrary to multi-story narratives. As the Mass Effect trilogy demonstrated.
Plot altering choices are nothing new, and have been done quite successfully in the past. Including other Bioware games.
First of all, if you liked either Control or Synthesis, you have bad taste and should feel bad.
But disregarding taste for a second. There is no plausible way for Bioware to go on telling other stories with the giant specter of the Reapers hanging over their heads. If they pick anything other than Destroy as canon, then every other story they tell will have to deal with this legion of ultra-powerful space squids (whether they are benevolent or not). If Bioware wants to keep the ME universe going for several more games, do they really want their universe dominated by squid-like mech-gods they dreamed up 5 to 10 years ago?
Just pick destroy and move on with it.
Ugh! What is this infatuation with "choice"?
For many people it's a core part of an RPG. It's fine if your main definition of an RPG is strategic combat that relies solely on intellect instead of manual action skills, but for others its branching narrative or the combination of these two together. But since Mass Effect isn't an RPG in combat aspect (or influence on the game's world aspect), if we remove choice and branching narrative what else is left there? It would be just pure action adventure game.
For many people it's a core part of an RPG. It's fine if your main definition of an RPG is strategic combat that relies solely on intellect instead of manual action skills, but for others its branching narrative or the combination of these two together. But since Mass Effect isn't an RPG in combat aspect (or influence on the game's world aspect), if we remove choice and branching narrative what else is left there? It would be just pure action adventure game.
I wish they didnt attempt to be smarter than they really were. that is the core of the problem of what we got in ME3, plus most probably unreasonable time limits imposed by the EA.
I think many people writing scifi be it for games, books, tv or movies underestimate endings that do not try to jump sideways. I liked Reapers back when they were huge sentient semi-organic machine squids. Subverting people with their indoctrination, thinking themselves way smarter than anyone else. The kind of enemy you relish beating, relish that moment when they fall because of something you did. Starbrat took that away. Reapers become inconsequential, in fact if you replaced reapers with pretty much anything else it wouldn't matter much, Reapers were iconic when they were each a nation, arrogantly disdainful of organics, so dismissive of the potential threat to them. Now? Now they are basically the same as those mechs we kept fighting in ME2, the only difference was in scale.
Picking one ME3 ending for the starting point of ME4 does not reduce either too a mere action/adventure game.
Perhaps (which I find debatable for an RPG franchise). But the Willie's question was broader, as in what the point of choice at all. At least that's how I understood it
I always choose destroy. I want those giant squidwards blown up! Besides we can always re-build EDI and the Geth
Like Katamuro said, small choices like the Virmir survivor are nice touches. But large plot-altering changes make it all but impossible to tell a coherent story. And I think a coherent and compelling story is far more important for an RPG: particularly a Bioware RPG. The Destroy vs. Synthesis/Control "choice" isn't just plot-altering, it's setting-altering. The ME Universe could go on producing great games for another decade. Why insist that a choice you made in 2012 dominate the setting for the next 5+ games you'll play over the next 10 years? It amounts to fetishizing "choice" to an irrational degree.
Like Katamuro said, small choices like the Virmir survivor are nice touches. But large plot-altering changes make it all but impossible to tell a coherent story. And I think a coherent and compelling story is far more important for an RPG: particularly a Bioware RPG. The Destroy vs. Synthesis/Control "choice" isn't just plot-altering, it's setting-altering. The ME Universe could go on producing great games for another decade. Why insist that a choice you made in 2012 dominate the setting for the next 5+ games you'll play over the next 10 years? It amounts to fetishizing "choice" to an irrational degree.
And not just games, books, comics and even movies and TV shows could have been produced. A book about the First Contact War, comics about rachni wars and krogan rebellions and a dozen different stories told between 2157-2186. The ME movie that now seems to be dead for a while. All that could have been here, being developed as part of the Extended ME universe but because the whole ending debacle it will be at least until the next game when the ball might start to roll again. The endings turned the opinion on how profitable it would be, they took out the iron-clad support of the fans that loved the game for years before that making the whole franchise more fragile.
After all if the ME3 ended in a way that was not so controversial and would have been liked by the majority of people EA would have been busy expanding upon the universe to earn more money while the next game is being made. While it still was done to some extent I feel like what we got in the comics was but one small part of the whole multi-media push that they had planned before. They still profited on ME3 but I suspect not quite as much as they had planned.
Yep. Which means that even if we stay in the same galaxy, it will still be a side-quel finding every excuse possible to avoid travelling to known regions influenced by the ME3. (that's ignoring the fact that the entire galaxy should be influenced by it, as shown in the ending cinematic, invluding yet-unexplored areas...)
none of that is necessary if it takes place before the Reaper War.
Setting subsequent games before the Reaper war doesn't solve anything. The threat of the Reapers would still hang over everything. Any other danger, threat, storyline the writers came up with would be trivialized by the impending doom the player new was nigh. Imagine if Star Wars Episode 1 - instead of being about the origins of Darth Vader - was about Obi Wan trying to stop an evil corporation from polluting a river on Alderan. The drama would be completely undermined by what we know happens in Episode 4.
Besides, a "prequel" would be, at best, a temporary solution. How many stories would Bioware be willing to tell with the already established lore as a straight jacket. Again, it's best to just bite the bullet and pick Destroy as cannon. Then they'd really be free to come up with new stories.
They're just going to say the Shepard united the galaxy and stopped the reaper threat if it is post Mass Effect3. If the game is featured in a new galaxy farther than the citadel species have traveled to before; they can skirt any cannon endings by being to far away to be effected by them. The crucible fires through the relays in the milky way galaxy. It shows nothing more than the Milky Way being effected. I believe the new mass effect is going to introduce worm hole technology or some explanation to allow travel to new galaxies. Thus the reason the developers keep saying exploration is going to play a large part of the new Mass Effect.
This is all speculation of course but how else do you make a game like Mass Effect better? you increase the size and scope of the universe.
They're just going to say the Shepard united the galaxy and stopped the reaper threat if it is post Mass Effect3. If the game is featured in a new galaxy farther than the citadel species have traveled to before; they can skirt any cannon endings by being to far away to be effected by them. The crucible fires through the relays in the milky way galaxy. It shows nothing more than the Milky Way being effected. I believe the new mass effect is going to introduce worm hole technology or some explanation to allow travel to new galaxies. Thus the reason the developers keep saying exploration is going to play a large part of the new Mass Effect.
This is all speculation of course but how else do you make a game like Mass Effect better? you increase the size and scope of the universe.
Better combat, more diverse bestiary, better encounters, better scenario writing, better character writing, more reactivity, better more lifelike hub worlds? You could do all of that in a tightly knit more personal story. The more focused, smaller scale ME2 did improve in several of those areas over its more ambitious but also unfocused and sprawling predecessor.
I'm not sure I want another attempt at BioWare "exploration" when ME1 and DA:I showed no sign of being able to match the scope of the project with their ability to deliver compelling content.
You need to keep in mind your dealing with developers who think none of that was a problem in the previous games. Regardless my explanation is to solve the issue of continuing the series without making cannon one of the ending choices while setting yourself up to be in a position to improve the game. How to improve on the overall experience of Mass Effect is another thread entirely.
Retour en haut
