140 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Nice quote. I believe in the power of the artist too. And if the audience wants to be the artist, then all we have to do is create our own stuff (maybe not a game on this scale, but we can write). Even when the artist fails, I want them to have that power. Let the chips fall where they may.

Video games aren't paintings or films. We are not just observers of this product. We actively engage and shape it through our interaction and choices. That leads to something entirely different. That is why player feedback and developer openness is so important. It's part of the reason BioWare has done so well because they listen. If BioWare becomes as self-centered and condescending as the message of that quote evokes, I believe they will lose a large part of their fan base. This is a collaborative effort, not big brother telling us "what [we] need."

[Mcfly616]

Except when it's not. The Citadel, arguably the most popular ME DLC of all time

 Alot of crap sells well. Doesn't change the fact that it's crap. 

 

 

The Citadel DLC was a straight up cheesefest. It was a parody of the series. It was a nice farewell and love letter to the fans, but other than that it feels completely out of place with the rest of games tone.

 

 

 

And concerning your Witcher post, other than Geralt and his personal relationships, the choices imported are trivial at best in regards to the next games story. Just as Mass Effects was. That's why the Witcher succeeds where Mass Effect doesn't. The Witcher narratives of each game are independent of one another and Mass Effect relies on the past games narratives which ultimately led to many of its shortcomings. 

[Revan Reborn]

 Alot of crap sells well. Doesn't change the fact that it's crap. 

 

 

The Citadel DLC was a straight up cheesefest. It was a parody of the series. It was a nice farewell and love letter to the fans, but other than that it feels completely out of place with the rest of games tone.

 

 

 

And concerning your Witcher post, other than Geralt and his personal relationships, the choices imported are trivial at best in regards to the next games story. Just as Mass Effects was. That's why the Witcher succeeds where Mass Effect doesn't. The Witcher narratives of each game are independent of one another and Mass Effect relies on the past games narratives which ultimately led to many of its shortcomings. 

"Crap," as you use it, is a purely subjective condition. As the wise man says, "one man's trash is another man's treature." Thus, your argument is devoid of credibility or weight as it is merely your "opinion."

 

I personally loved the Citadel. Not only did it pay homage to fans who had been playing Mass Effect since the beginning, but it actually was fun, had an engaging story, and added plenty of variety, not just fan service.

 

While this is the case with the import to TW2, the only reason it was "trivial," to some degree, is purely because CDPR got the feature into the game late. It wasn't originally planned, but when they decided they wanted to tie TW1 into TW2, they threw together the import to allow more consistency and so players could have more of a connection. This won't be the case with the save import feature for TW3, which will allow players to make the major decisions in TW2 drastically impact how TW3 plays out.

 

You may want to do some more research on TW3 before you purchase it. The choices you made in TW2 will impact TW3 A LOT and CDPR has been rather transparent about this. It's not only to indulge their longstanding fan base, but also to have greater reactivity and player freedom. Such flexibility is much more constrained in separate sequels where the developer is driving the experience more than the player.

[Mcfly616]

"Crap," as you use it, is a purely subjective condition. As the wise man says, "one man's trash is another man's treature." Thus, your argument is devoid of credibility or weight as it is merely your "opinion."

 

I personally loved the Citadel. Not only did it pay homage to fans who had been playing Mass Effect since the beginning, but it actually was fun, had an engaging story, and added plenty of variety, not just fan service.

 

 

 

You may want to do some more research on TW3 before you purchase it. The choices you made in TW2 will impact TW3 A LOT and CDPR has been rather transparent about this. It's not only to indulge their longstanding fan base, but also to have greater reactivity and player freedom. Such flexibility is much more constrained in separate sequels where the developer is driving the experience more than the player.

 My logic is sound. Just because something sells doesn't mean it's any good. It in no way validates its level of quality. 

 

I like the Citadel as well. It was the most fun of all the DLCs imo. It was also the most bang for your buck. Doesn't blind me to the fact that it's just an over-the top parody filled with fan service and that it's completely disconnected from the game it's a part of. Many people liked it. And many of those same people will admit that they wouldn't want an entire Mass Effect game with half that level of cheese. 

 

I know all there is to know about the upcoming Witcher. The devs specifically played down the transfer of choices. The bard sings your tale and you can correct him if he's wrong. It's the same thing ME2 did with Miranda quizzing you on your past ME1 decisions. Like I said: trivial to the narrative at hand. They've literally said it's a great place for new players to jump into the series. Sounds a bit like Bioware's PR pre-ME3. 

[Dr. Rush]

That is not a fault of the trilogy concept in itself, but BioWare's execution of it. Again, BioWare knew they were doing a trilogy, but they didn't have each story written out before the games were released. Thus, when Drew left, there were major plotholes present that did not connect and weren't addressed. I think if they do a better job of establishing the story, characters, and what will happen in future games ahead of time, this won't be a concern.

Bioware is still on a budget, despite their billionaire overlord's vast wealth. They aren't going to write 3 games up front, they aren't going to guarantee the employment of writers or devs for the entire span of the trilogy, they aren't going to guarantee they will hire the same actors for the same roles through the whole trilogy. 

 

I don't want to sound cynical, but my very point is that, Bioware, and the game industry as a whole, is too fluid and volatile to ever execute the best case scenario trilogy that you are suggesting. That simply won't ever happen, games will always be designed with many moving parts and a revolving door of employment. Even the budgets will be limited to each individual game, their design budgets, their marketing budgets, etc.

 

What you are suggesting is an ideal, but not one that will happen within the harsh reality of game design.

[Revan Reborn]

 My logic is sound. Just because something sells doesn't mean it's any good. It in no way validates its level of quality. 

 

I like the Citadel as well. It was the most fun of all the DLCs imo. It was also the most bang for your buck. Doesn't blind me to the fact that it's just an over-the top parody filled with fan service and that it's completely disconnected from the game it's a part of. Many people liked it. And many of those same people will admit that they wouldn't want an entire Mass Effect game with half that level of cheese. 

 

I know all there is to know about the upcoming Witcher. The devs specifically played down the transfer of choices. The bard sings your tale and you can correct him if he's wrong. It's the same thing ME2 did with Miranda quizzing you on your past ME1 decisions. Like I said: trivial to the narrative at hand. They've literally said it's a great place for new players to jump into the series. Sounds a bit like Bioware's PR pre-ME3. 

Whether something is "good" or "bad" is subjective. This has nothing to do with if it sells or not.

 

Citadel was an unofficial "goodbye" to the Mass Effect trilogy. It's not something that will become the norm. It was a way to close what was an amazing chapter in gaming.

 

CDPR also stated that as the case with TW2. Sure, you can start the game and jump right in. However, you aren't going to have the slightest idea what's going on. You won't know why this old, rugged dude is in bed with a fully-naked red head. You won't understand Geralt's history with King Foltest and why it's such a big deal when he dies. You won't understand that witchers have been hunting Foltest for a long time since TW1. You won't know Dandelion, Zoltan, the conflict between humans, elves, dwarves, why no one seems to like Geralt, etc.

 

In short, you can play Halo 3 and it has a beginning, middle, and an end, but you won't have a clue of what's happening. The same will apply to TW3. Who is Geralt? What is the Wild Hunt? Who is Triss? Who is Yennefer? Why is the Nilfgaardian Empire bad? In other words, ignorance is bliss when playing any Witcher game because you will be significantly confused if you try to answer even the most basic questions. You definitely need to play the first two games if you want to know what's going on.

 

I don't  buy it. Bioware is still on a budget, despite their billionaire overlord's vast wealth. They aren't going to write 3 games up front, they aren't going to guarantee the employment of writers or devs for the entire span of the trilogy, they aren't going to guarantee they will hire the same actors for the same roles through the whole trilogy. 

 

I don't want to sound cynical, but my very point is that, Bioware, and the game industry as a whole, is too fluid and volatile to ever execute the best case scenario trilogy that you are suggesting. That simply won't ever happen, games will always be designed with many moving parts and a revolving door of employment. Even the budgets will be limited to each individual game, their design budgets, their marketing budgets.

 

What you are suggesting is an ideal, but not one that will happen within the harsh and compromising reality of game design.

I believe we are talking about two very different things. I'm stating BioWare could easily write the main story for the three games, in other words the main plot (on paper). I'm not stating BioWare needs to develop three games simultaneously, like Peter Jackson did with TLotR and TH. Also, writers at BioWare tend to stay with them for a very long time. Generally when a writer leaves BioWare, it was the writers choice to do so.

 

This is merely proper planning and to avoid inconsistencies. If we actually look at how the writing team functions, they write the game well in advance of it being developed and they are done writing well before the game is released. Before the game is released, they are already writing for the next project. So, why would it be unreasonable to have the lead writer merely come up with a skeletal outline for a trilogy just for the sake of consistency?

[KaiserShep]

A big part of me really wants a trilogy just because I'm a glutton for these sorts of games and would love to have more and more of the Mass Effect universe to play in. I don't think BioWare needs to make a trilogy out of the new story, whatever it is, but I do know that I wants it bad.

[Winterking]

Well I don't know about a trilogy. I've always felt that the idea of sticking to number three because of "it needs to be a trilogy" was a bad one.

 

I for once feel that the Shepard trilogy deserved a game between Mass Effect 2 and 3.

 

However, I really want that that next protagonist gets more than one game. Regarding the import function, I definitly want to see it in the next ME games. The import function was the reason why I started playing Mass Effect 1 instead of starting with Mass Effect 2.

 

Also I dont see the need of having  a story  across three games. I wouldn't mind having  a series of games with the same protagonist but facing different threats in each game.

 

Also make the choices more personal instead of having ones that are so world changing that they are unable to keep different world states.

 

Bioware needs take hints from the genophage arc. The whole thing started on Virmire with the choice of killing Wrex, went across Mass Effect 2 with Mordin's loyalty mission and had a great a conclusion with Priority Tuchanka. Those sorts of choices and consequences were fine.

 

The Council, Collector base and the Rachni were rendered irrelevant and those are types of decisions that they should avoid having in the next Mass Effect.

[themikefest]

If its going to be a trilogy, I would not announce it as one till I see how well the first game sells

 

For me, I'm not sure if I want another trilogy

[The Arbiter]

I too believe they should go for (or plan on) a trilogy.  If they plan all three games thematically and simultaneously, I think they can get something epic going.  If it is all planned at once, retconning and plot holes can also be avoided.  

 

A full trilogy takes what, about a decade to make?  Lets hope that the writing team stays together that long.  Sadly, careers change and the realities of business can affect the writing team rather heavily.  Perhaps if a blueprint or a template was created then some of the original  essence can make it through the series.

 

Star Wars is a good example (ok, the originals - for the record) of how well the Trilogy idea can work.  Simply put, you had 3 acts that when put together told an epic tale that had a wonderful ending *cough*.  I think BioWare could learn a lot from looking at other Trilogies out there and study why they are so successful.  

Nothing beats back to the future

[The Arbiter]

 Alot of crap sells well. Doesn't change the fact that it's crap. 

 

 

The Citadel DLC was a straight up cheesefest. It was a parody of the series. It was a nice farewell and love letter to the fans, but other than that it feels completely out of place with the rest of games tone.

 

 

 

And concerning your Witcher post, other than Geralt and his personal relationships, the choices imported are trivial at best in regards to the next games story. Just as Mass Effects was. That's why the Witcher succeeds where Mass Effect doesn't. The Witcher narratives of each game are independent of one another and Mass Effect relies on the past games narratives which ultimately led to many of its shortcomings. 

Exactly. Just like Final Fantasy all games are independent from one another

[Revan Reborn]

You can still put in all of those choices...while retaining artistic vision. They did fine for almost 20 years making games with choices, and not worrying about what someone on tumblr thinks. Why do they suddenly need help now?

 

I think player feedback can limit things instead. So many fans demanded more Liara, for example, that other elements took a backseat. It's made a group so convinced of the importance of their own gameplay that they think they're playing a "canon". That never used to happen. People say that's Mac Walters fault --- but I don't think it is. He's shown himself to be well rounded. He wrote Foundation. And he's the one responsible for a lot of interesting little quests that take into account the most subtle choices. Like Conrad Verner. lol

Games are much more ambitious in size and scope than they were twenty years ago when BioWare was appealing to the small, niche PC community in the 90s.

 

Player feedback definitely needs to be regulated. There's no doubt about that. However, no feedback at all is bad for development. I actually like Mac Walters and given the situation he was put in, I believe he handled Mass Effect 3 rather well. He was never the lead writer. That was Drew's job. He was merely a collaborator, and when Drew went out the door during and after ME2, Mac was left with bringing a series to a close. It wasn't the most smooth ending, but he made it work for the most part. I certainly don't hate ME3 as some on these forums seem to. Overall, I believe the pros of the game far outweigh the cons.

 

A big part of me really wants a trilogy just because I'm a glutton for these sorts of games and would love to have more and more of the Mass Effect universe to play in. I don't think BioWare needs to make a trilogy out of the new story, whatever it is, but I do know that I wants it bad.

In my opinion, Mass Effect is a trilogy franchise. That's how BioWare originally built it and the save import merely reinforces that philosophy. I would be gravely disappointed if BioWare does not continue that tradition.

 

Well I don't know about a trilogy. I've always felt that the idea of sticking to number three because of "it needs to be a trilogy" was a bad one.

 

I for once feel that the Shepard trilogy deserved a game between Mass Effect 2 and 3.

 

However, I really want that that next protagonist gets more than one game. Regarding the import function, I definitly want to see it in the next ME games. The import function was the reason why I started playing Mass Effect 1 instead of starting with Mass Effect 2.

 

Also I dont see the need of having  a story  across three games. I wouldn't mind having  a series of games with the same protagonist but facing different threats in each game.

 

Also make the choices more personal instead of having ones that are so world changing that they are unable to keep different world states.

 

Bioware needs take hints from the genophage arc. The whole thing started on Virmire with the choice of killing Wrex, went across Mass Effect 2 with Mordin's loyalty mission and had a great a conclusion with Priority Tuchanka. Those sorts of choices and consequences were fine.

 

The Council, Collector base and the Rachni were rendered irrelevant and those are types of decisions that they should avoid having in the next Mass Effect.

Why would a game between ME2 and ME3 make any sense? Did you not play Arrival? The only thing you would have done during that time is sit in house arrest and go before a Military Tribunal for your actions against almost wiping out an entire race of people... That doesn't sound like a very compelling game to me.

 

The save import is essential. I can't see BioWare not continuing it in future games. That's a possibility, however the experience can generally be more gratifying if there are stronger parallels between games. Not to mention, players like to see their decisions come back to haunt them in later games, much like the genophage arc you alluded to. If you have stories in isolation that only happen in one game, the impact is much less.

 

Much of the plot holes and questionable writing could have been avoided had BioWare not changed lead writers between ME2 and ME3. If they had outlined the entire story for all three games well in advance of Drew leaving, many of these issues would not have surfaced. I am confident BioWare will not make that mistake again should this new game be the start of a new trilogy.

 

If its going to be a trilogy, I would not announce it as one till I see how well the first game sells

 

For me, I'm not sure if I want another trilogy

Mass Effect was built to be a trilogy. To me, that's the very soul and DNA of the franchise as it was always intended to be a three game arc. I'd personally like to see that continue and couldn't see BioWare doing anything else.

 

Exactly. Just like Final Fantasy all games are independent from one another

Yep. It's also why most of the Final Fantasy games are terrible and Square fanboys will only foundly rave about FFVII and no other game in the series. Definitely not a franchise to follow.

[Revan Reborn]

Fair enough. I'm in the same camp as you then.

 

I'm not against fan feedback as a whole or anything. i just don't think they properly gauge it. All fans matter...unless, y'know... they only make up like 1 percent of players or something.. maybe it's best to cut their losses then and focus on other feedback.

That's certainly an issue. How to obtain that feedback can be tricky. If BioWare were to just use their official forums, everything would be skewed to the perception of the "BioWare diehards." I admit that I can only speak for myself and that my views may not represent those of the average gamer buying a BioWare game. However, you never know what kind of ideas the community could provide that will translate into future titles.

 

We can look at Skyrim. Many of the ideas that were incorporated into the game (finishing moves, decapitations, slower backpedaling, etc.) actually game from popular mods in Oblivion. I certainly agree with you that developers should always try to create the vision of a game they believe they'd want to play and others would as well. That being said, it's never a bad thing to get ideas from your fans, of which may be some you never even considered.

 

It's a way of expanding your perspective but not necessarily limiting it. Again, it's a matter of balancing and weighing through the feedback you are receiving.

[Naphtali]

  Do people like Geralt as the protagonist? Sure. But each game would be possible without him in that role.

 

No it wouldn't be the same, lets not confuse pre built custom with static, you determine the nature of friendships/ relationships, weather your violent and cruel, or more diplomatic and peace seeking, your code on monsters (sentient ones), do you share views of equality and freedom like Saskia or are you indifferent, this and a lot more make Geralt the players Geralt.

 

No..sorry it wouldn't be the same

[Revan Reborn]

No it wouldn't be the same, lets not confuse pre built custom with static, you determine the nature of friendships/ relationships, weather your violent and cruel, or more diplomatic and peace seeking, your code on monsters (sentient ones), do you share views of equality and freedom like Saskia or are you indifferent, this and a lot more make Geralt the players Geralt.

 

No..sorry it wouldn't be the same

Exactly. Geralt is in many ways like Shepard. He starts out as an established character with a basic background in the first game, but you change and define him through your choices over the course of the trilogy. To not understand this is to either not have played The Witcher games or to fail to see the nuances and beauty of them. You can be a cold, ruthless monster-slayer for hire not giving a damn about the world or its problems. On the other hand, you can be a kind, compassionate, and caring individual seeking the root out injustice in the world and make life a better place for those you see in peril. This is Geralt. He has many shades, and the players determine to what degree he may lean one way or the other, just like Shepard.

[Heimdall]

Exactly. Geralt is in many ways like Shepard. He starts out as an established character with a basic background in the first game, but you change and define him through your choices over the course of the trilogy. To not understand this is to either not have played The Witcher games or to fail to see the nuances and beauty of them. You can be a cold, ruthless monster-slayer for hire not giving a damn about the world or its problems. On the other hand, you can be a kind, compassionate, and caring individual seeking the root out injustice in the world and make life a better place for those you see in peril. This is Geralt. He has many shades, and the players determine to what degree he may lean one way or the other, just like Shepard.

Okay, first, to say that "If you don't share my opinion you either haven't played the game or have failed to appreciate them" is pretty condescending and arrogant.  Your opinion is not absolute, and there's an argument to be made that Geralt's variations in his character are quite minimal.

 

That said, I agree with your opinion in this case.

[Revan Reborn]

Okay, first, to say that "If you don't share my opinion you either haven't played the game or have failed to appreciate them" is pretty condescending and arrogant.  Your opinion is not absolute, and there's an argument to be made that Geralt's variations in his character are quite minimal.

 

That said, I agree with your opinion in this case.

My post is not meant to be condescending, but merely clarify that there is quite a bit of depth in Geralt's character. A better example of a character you have zero control over would be Batman or Master Chief, who are established and you merely follow. Geralt and Shepard, on the other hand, are characters you are actively shaping through every choice, no matter how major or minor the consequences may be.

[Malanek]

I could take or leave a new trilogy as the next 3 mass effect games.

 

There is definitely a stronger emotional connection built up between the player and various characters over time. You see the characters grow and change and have time to learn a lot more about them. I didn't really think Garrus or Tali were anything special in ME1, but they were much more interesting and I cared for them much more by the time ME3 rolled around.

 

You also do get that feeling of epicness which is enhanced by following a story for more than 5 years, rather than perhaps 5 days if it was a standalone game.

 

But I am not quite so keen on the consequences. I don't think Bioware have done this well at all. In my opinion having to cater for many, many different sets of possibilities only to offer cosmetic changes to the user has been a complete disaster. I think it has negatively impacted the story of DA2, DAI, ME2 and ME3.

 

I do think that if they set out to do a trilogy, knowing the basic structure and key answers, right from the start would be a big benefit.

[Revan Reborn]

I could take or leave a new trilogy as the next 3 mass effect games.

 

There is definitely a stronger emotional connection built up between the player and various characters over time. You see the characters grow and change and have time to learn a lot more about them. I didn't really think Garrus or Tali were anything special in ME1, but they were much more interesting and I cared for them much more by the time ME3 rolled around.

 

You also do get that feeling of epicness which is enhanced by following a story for more than 5 years, rather than perhaps 5 days if it was a standalone game.

 

But I am not quite so keen on the consequences. I don't think Bioware have done this well at all. In my opinion having to cater for many, many different sets of possibilities only to offer cosmetic changes to the user has been a complete disaster. I think it has negatively impacted the story of DA2, DAI, ME2 and ME3.

 

I do think that if they set out to do a trilogy, knowing the basic structure and key answers, right from the start would be a big benefit.

Exactly. I believe a trilogy is the only way to go forward with Mass Effect and that the shortcomings of the previous trilogy were merely a consequence of ill-proper planning. Build a story arc well in advance knowing the beginning, middle, and end allows you avoid the main pitfalls BioWare suffered from changes in writing leadership amongst other things.

 

The first Mass Effect trilogy was a guinea pig. BioWare was going into uncharted territory and they weren't even sure if Mass Effect would be a resounding success. Now that it is, there's no reason for BioWare not to perfect on the foundation they've already created. Mass Effect can be better and I see no reason to change the very structure that made Mass Effect so amazing to start. Anything else and it just wouldn't be Mass Effect.

[Heimdall]

My post is not meant to be condescending, but merely clarify that there is quite a bit of depth in Geralt's character. A better example of a character you have zero control over would be Batman or Master Chief, who are established and you merely follow. Geralt and Shepard, on the other hand, are characters you are actively shaping through every choice, no matter how major or minor the consequences may be.

I'd put Geralt further down the spectrum towards static than Shepard, persoanlly

[Malanek]

I'd put Geralt further down the spectrum towards static than Shepard, persoanlly

 

I would agree with that.

 

The big difference was that he was already in multiple books and short stories as a pre-defined character. In the first witcher game there was the back story about how he lost his memory, which helps give the player lee-way to shape him a bit, but the history still exists and many characters the player may or may not be familiar with (whether they have read the books or not) react to him. It might also be difficult for readers to disassociate from book Geralt's personality.

 

There is also the fact the player cannot really change Geralts basic appearance. Nor of course the gender. I think it is fairly safe to say Geralt was more pre-defined than Shepard, the only argument is by how much.

[Heimdall]

I would agree with that.

 

The big difference was that he was already in multiple books and short stories as a pre-defined character. In the first witcher game there was the back story about how he lost his memory, which helps give the player lee-way to shape him a bit, but the history still exists and many characters the player may or may not be familiar with (whether they have read the books or not) react to him. It might also be difficult for readers to disassociate from book Geralt's personality.

 

There is also the fact the player cannot really change Geralts basic appearance. Nor of course the gender. I think it is fairly safe to say Geralt was more pre-defined than Shepard, the only argument is by how much.

Well, the games do actually include quite a lot of autodialogue (Much maligned in ME3), or atleast that's what I'm encountering as I'm replaying the first game.

 

Geralt's personality can be influenced, but book Geralt's personality is still there at the core.  That's part of why people have trouble feeling a sense of ownership like you can with Shepard, to a degree.