140 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Certainly players have more creative liberty over Shepard. You can choose Shepard's origins, gender, appearance, etc. However, what's rather set and stone about Shepard is whether he/she is Paragon "good" or Renegade "bad." There isn't much leeway or flexibility from that perspective in defining Shepard's character beyond those constraints.

 

Geralt, while he may be defined in the novels and his appearance and gender are set, he did lose his memory. Yes, you can make an argument there are still traces of his default mentality and habits, but there is much more nuance in defining him than Shepard. Mass Effect largely only gives you two choices (especially in ME2 and ME3). The Witcher, on the other hand, generally gives you at least three, and they are never entirely good, bad, or ugly.

 

So, from a superficial perspective, Shepard has more flexibility. But in terms of choices and nuance, Geralt has more flexibility. Overall, I believe both characters allow you to ultimately make them into your own as you invest many hours with these characters and their various companions in several games.

[Revan Reborn]

There's flexibility to me with the P/R thing if I change it up between games. It can illustrate Shepard's growth........ or even further descent. Either/or.

 

If I stay the same character all the time though, it's not interesting. To me anyways.

 

 

Speaking of which, there's a good example here with Al-jilani in ME3. I was really impressed when I Paragon interrupted her. It was right after I got off Earth, and was too sad to punch her... and then Shep kind of touches her shoulder and is nice for a change. "You may be a violent thug, but I'm glad you're on our side."

 

That's a cool example of a Renegade changing his act.

That's certainly possible, and you can mix Paragon and Renegade to a point (you need to choose if you want Saren or TIM to kill themselves), but it's still largely constrained by morality. That's not the case in The Witcher, where you have multiple bad choices and you have to choose the lesser of multiple evils.

 

The Witcher just allows for much more flexibility, especially when you either support Iorveth or Roche, help Iorveth or chase after Síle de Tansarville, rescue Triss or try to stop the sorceresses. Each choice has impacts on your relationships with these individuals, how they perceive you, and what you are able to do in the future. So when Geralt may be a more stringent character, there is quite a bit of breadth in terms of how you can shape his destiny compared to Mass Effect.

[Heimdall]

That's certainly possible, and you can mix Paragon and Renegade to a point (you need to choose if you want Saren or TIM to kill themselves), but it's still largely constrained by morality. That's not the case in The Witcher, where you have multiple bad choices and you have to choose the lesser of multiple evils.

 

The Witcher just allows for much more flexibility, especially when you either support Iorveth or Roche, help Iorveth or chase after Síle de Tansarville, rescue Triss or try to stop the sorceresses. Each choice has impacts on your relationships with these individuals, how they perceive you, and what you are able to do in the future. So when Geralt may be a more stringent character, there is quite a bit of breadth in terms of how you can shape his destiny compared to Mass Effect.

That speaks more to the advantage of not having a binding binary morality system (Something I've long said Mass Effect should do away with)

 

I actually thought the Witcher occasionally suffered from the same flaw that plagued the latter stages of DA2.  Instead of making the boring black/white choice you get to choose the black/black/black choice, when really you just want to say "**** all you jerks, I'm leaving".  Though to its credit, the first game at least does provide that option sometimes, unlike DA2.

[Revan Reborn]

That speaks more to the advantage of not having a binding binary morality system (Something I've long said Mass Effect should do away with)

 

I actually thought the Witcher occasionally suffered from the same flaw that plagued the latter stages of DA2.  Instead of making the boring black/white choice you get to choose the black/black/black choice, when really you just want to say "**** all you jerks, I'm leaving".  Though to its credit, the first game at least does provide that option sometimes, unlike DA2.

I agree that Mass Effect needs to trash the morality system. Paragon/Renegade was something BioWare brought over from KotOR via the Light/Dark morality system. It works in Star Wars, but I don't believe it's appropriate for Mass Effect. It constrains and limits what BioWare can do from a storytelling perspective and makes the experience far too predictable.

 

To an extent that is true, although I prefer the black/black/black choices to just a black/white choice personally. The Witcher 1 actually did a great job of supporting the elves, the humans, or being against everyone. That would have been harder to achieve in The Witcher 2, however, given the scale and choices had deeper consequences.

 

I do believe we will see more of a return to Geralt's third option of not siding with anyone in TW3, as it seems to be much more of a personal quest rather than a big, political game like TW2.

[The Arbiter]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

The reason why Final Fantasy Games has become "TERRIBLE" is because Square-Enix decided to dump their tradition. What tradition? of making Independent hard restart Final Fantasies with every new release! instead they continued the story of FF XIII- XIII - II AND LIGHTNING RETURNS WTF! not to mention X-II! now everyone in the Square forums including me told the devs to dump the idea and get on something new! and what did we get? FFXV no connection to past installments whatsoever in an attempt to redeem themselves

 

Now about Bioware, what's the tradition in Bioware? continuity of story, import saves, emotional journey. This is my first time to experience Bioware if ever they are attempting a Restart of Mass Effect I hope they won't have the same mistake that of Square

[Revan Reborn]

The reason why Final Fantasy Games has become "TERRIBLE" is because Square-Enix decided to dump their tradition. What tradition? of making Independent hard restart Final Fantasies with every new release! instead they continued the story of FF XIII- XIII - II AND LIGHTNING RETURNS WTF! not to mention X-II! now everyone in the Square forums including me told the devs to dump the idea and get on something new! and what did we get? FFXV no connection to past installments whatsoever in an attempt to redeem themselves

 

Now about Bioware, what's the tradition in Bioware? continuity of story, import saves, emotional journey. This is my first time to experience Bioware if ever they are attempting a Restart of Mass Effect I hope they won't have the same mistake that of Square

Final Fantasy went down way before that buddy. There hasn't arguably been a good Final Fantasy game since FFVII. FFVIII was okay. FFIX was mediocre. FFX and FFX-2 were terrible. FFXI is a grindy MMO. FFXII was horribly bad. FFXIII to XIII-3 was an embarassment. FFXIV is one of the worst MMOs ever released and had to be rebooted. FFXV (Versus XIII) has been in development since 2006 and it's unclear if it will ever be released. I'd hardly say Square Enix's methods for creating Final Fantasy have ever truly been successful. It is because they are all independent and separate that some are good and many are bad. That is a path BioWare does not need to follow.

 

I can already tell you the lead writer of the next Mass Effect was the lead writer of Halo 4. The story is going to be drastically different from what we know. That doesn't mean BioWare can't do another trilogy around this new direction.

[NM_Che56]

Trilogy? Seems too limiting.  You can't just arbitrarily decide to make a trilogy.  Maybe the story you want to tell is only good for one game.   If you're a creator, why would you want to be obliged to drag something out longer than you wanted to?  Take the Last of Us.  I would love to have a new game with

Spoiler

Ellie and Joel

.  But at the same time, does that story HAVE to be told? A part of me also fears that by continuing on with

Spoiler

Ellie and Joel

that it will sully things.  It's nice to have my mental picture to put on the shelf.

 

What sustains a franchise is the universe that was created. Not necessarily a handful of characters, but the promise that more interesting and new characters can emerge.  For the new game, I don't think it should be the start of a trilogy.  The Mass Effect universe is so big and diverse that I would hate to be tethered to the same character (i.e. same point of view) for the next 6-10 years again.  That's not to say that carrying over characters into subsequent games is unwelcomed.  But things could grow stale before a trilogy is over, especially considering that the supposed scale and scope of this game is going to be...out of this world? LOL.

[Revan Reborn]

Trilogy? Seems too limiting.  You can't just arbitrarily decide to make a trilogy.  Maybe the story you want to tell is only good for one game.   If you're a creator, why would you want to be obliged to drag something out longer than you wanted to?  Take the Last of Us.  I would love to have a new game with

Spoiler

Ellie and Joel

.  But at the same time, does that story HAVE to be told? A part of me also fears that by continuing on with

Spoiler

Ellie and Joel

that it will sully things.  It's nice to have my mental picture to put on the shelf.

 

What sustains a franchise is the universe that was created. Not necessarily a handful of characters, but the promise that more interesting and new characters can emerge.  For the new game, I don't think it should be the start of a trilogy.  The Mass Effect universe is so big and diverse that I would hate to be tethered to the same character (i.e. same point of view) for the next 6-10 years again.  That's not to say that carrying over characters into subsequent games is unwelcomed.  But things could grow stale before a trilogy is over, especially considering that the supposed scale and scope of this game is going to be...out of this world? LOL.

Mass Effect, as a franchise, was built to be a trilogy. The Last of Us, by a totally unrelated developer, has no relevance. My point is Mass Effect was built on the trilogy formula. That is what made it a smashing success and BioWare should stick to the core foundation of what makes Mass Effect... Mass Effect. Dragon Age already handles the separate games "one and done" philosophy, and it provides mixed results in my opinion.

 

Perhaps I'm alone, but what made Mass Effect stand out is because you were your own Shepard for three games. It was a buildup to an epic finale where all your relationships and choices came full circle, or at least that was the attempt. Either way, to not learn from what the strengths of the series were would be a large mistake on BioWare's part. I believe having the same protagonist carry over through several games is ideal and a must for Mass Effect. That is how it was built and I can't see it truly being the successor to the original trilogy unless it follows that similar formula.

[Lavros]

I believe the best choice for the series would be a trilogy as it works well with the original premise of following one individual through the events of a galaxy spanning story while also utilizing the save import function.

 

As it has been pointed out before the weakness of the last trilogy began with the shift of direction from dark energy to organics vs. synthetics in the middle of the series. Having a well structured endgame was their issue not the fact that ME was a trilogy.

 

An important aspect of the Mass Effect series is that it is a space opera. This type of science fiction benefits greatly from the time, resources and exposure that a trilogy can provide. This is something that a stand alone game cannot hope to compete with due to the sheer amount of character development available from a trilogy. 

[Revan Reborn]

I believe the best choice for the series would be a trilogy as it works well with the original premise of following one individual through the events of a galaxy spanning story while also utilizing the save import function.

 

As it has been pointed out before the weakness of the last trilogy began with the shift of direction from dark energy to organics vs. synthetics in the middle of the series. Having a well structured endgame was their issue not the fact that ME was a trilogy.

 

An important aspect of the Mass Effect series is that it is a space opera. This type of science fiction benefits greatly from the time, resources and exposure that a trilogy can provide. This is something that a stand alone game cannot hope to compete with due to the sheer amount of character development available from a trilogy. 

Excellent points. Thanks for contributing. I really believe many do not appreciate and undervalue how crucial the trilogy scheme is to the Mass Effect formula. That is, in fact, what made Mass Effect as compelling and unique as it is. Had the series just been three separate games, it's highly unlikely Mass Effect would be as popular as it is today. It is the fact that BioWare did something different and was a pioneer for a new kind of storytelling that it paid off in a major way.

[Auztin]

Just incase you didn't know Dead Space is not ending as a trilogy.The DLC was post game & ended on a sequel bait/cliffhanger.Nonetheless I agree.I want another ME Trilogy. Can never have to much Mass Effect.

[Revan Reborn]

Just incase you didn't know Dead Space is not ending as a trilogy.The DLC was post game & ended on a sequel bait/cliffhanger.Nonetheless I agree.I want another ME Trilogy. Can never have to much Mass Effect.

While that may be, there are only three Dead Space games currently and Visceral games has no plans to return to the franchise anytime soon due to disappointing sales of Dead Space 3. They just recently released Battlefield: Hardline and they are also working on development of an unannounced Star Wars game. Rumor has it they are using the scrapped 1313 as the main foundation for the game.

 

The more ME trilogies, the better. It just wouldn't be Mass Effect if BioWare didn't maintain that strategy. The fact that they brought up the lead writer of Halo 4 as the lead writer on the new Mass Effect, I'd have to assume it's a trilogy. Halo 4, itself, is merely the start of a new trilogy, the Reclaimer trilogy. It wouldn't be far-fetched to believe BioWare would look for somebody with similar talents and experience to what Mass Effect has already done in the past.

[Robert Cousland]

I want an Elcor romance. >

 

With great arousal, you are very attractive, for a human.

 

Or maybe a Hanar romance, just think of what those tentacles could do.

[Heimdall]

I believe the best choice for the series would be a trilogy as it works well with the original premise of following one individual through the events of a galaxy spanning story while also utilizing the save import function.

As it has been pointed out before the weakness of the last trilogy began with the shift of direction from dark energy to organics vs. synthetics in the middle of the series. Having a well structured endgame was their issue not the fact that ME was a trilogy.

An important aspect of the Mass Effect series is that it is a space opera. This type of science fiction benefits greatly from the time, resources and exposure that a trilogy can provide. This is something that a stand alone game cannot hope to compete with due to the sheer amount of character development available from a trilogy.

The Mass Effect trilogy's big problem was a lack of long term planning. When they made Mass Effect, they had only vague ideas what they would do for Mass Effect 2, and the same with 3. Hence the wild variations in tone and lack of strong overarching narrative (Many a complaint has been made over ME2's plot being utterly tangential)

An advantage of a trilogy structure is knowing that you have a beginning middle and end, and you can plan around that from the get go. The devs just didn't take advantage of that. They made it up as they went along.

[We'll bang okay]

I hope they give us a game what could be a stand alone game, with the possibility to become a trilogy, so if people enjoy the setting the plot and characters we would get two or more games, and if not it won't leave anything unsettled 

[Revan Reborn]

The Mass Effect trilogy's big problem was a lack of long term planning. When they made Mass Effect, they had only vague ideas what they would do for Mass Effect 2, and the same with 3. Hence the wild variations in tone and lack of strong overarching narrative (Many a complaint has been made over ME2's plot being utterly tangential)

An advantage of a trilogy structure is knowing that you have a beginning middle and end, and you can plan around that from the get go. The devs just didn't take advantage of that. They made it up as they went along.

Exactly. The fault of the original trilogy had nothing to do with the concept of a trilogy itself, but the poor execution on BioWare's part. Many of the issues fans criticized BioWare for could be rectified in a new trilogy with just proper planning and an actual structure to the experience. In fact, I'm quite curious just how amazing a job BioWare could do given the proper direction as well as an adequate amount of time to make each installment instead of being pressed for time and forced to push the games into the market.

[Ski Mask Wei]

Revan Reborn I think you're underestimating how hard it is to write a trilogy of rpgs.  It's not like writing three 2 and some change hour movies.  The Mass Effect series which is on the short side for rpg main quests were still about 12+ hours a piece.  When the smallest writing estimate is around 36 hours that's not nothing to shake a stick at.  I'm not even mentioning adding player choice to the mix.  I'm also not going to mention the Mass Effect Trilogy really only had enough story for two games as you can skip ME2 barely miss anything that's important to ME3.

 

I can see why Bioware would want to continue the tradition of save imports/trilogies especially for ME and DA but for their next IP I hope they go the stand alone route.  They need to go back to basics and make something like KOTOR or JR again.     

[Ski Mask Wei]

Skipping ME2 would skip the genophage and Geth/Quarian stuff. Your biggest quests for allies in ME3. While skipping it as a whole skips Illusive Man, who is integral to the whole theme of the series. About where humanity's place is going to be in the galaxy, and the contrasts you might have from him. All three of these are about evolutionary destiny, and ME3 would be an even poorer game without getting into it. It'd just be a straight line from A to B where you fight the Reapers, and never address this other stuff about how the galaxy is going to look and rebuild, if you do happen to destroy the Reapers.

 

It was necessary to meet Mordin and get his side of the story (rather than simply settling with Wrex in ME1), and Legion (rather than just Tali), and to get the many sides of Jacob, TIM, Miranda, and Jack on Cerberus.

 

While I love ME2 and I think it's overall the best game in the series it's barely a bridge between 1 and 3.  Yes, it pads out the world more but a ton of ME2 has nothing to do with stopping the Reapers.  Even seemingly important things like Shepard dying and the suicide mission have little to no impact.  Factions like the Geth and Krogan are basically cannon fodder in the final battle so you can get to the Citadel.  You don't get any secret insight to stopping the Reapers from anyone.  The most important revelations in the MET come from Prothean Beacons.  Damn near everything else can be removed or replaced and it'll have little effect on the main plot.      

[Revan Reborn]

Revan Reborn I think you're underestimating how hard it is to write a trilogy of rpgs.  It's not like writing three 2 and some change hour movies.  The Mass Effect series which is on the short side for rpg main quests were still about 12+ hours a piece.  When the smallest writing estimate is around 36 hours that's not nothing to shake a stick at.  I'm not even mentioning adding player choice to the mix.  I'm also not going to mention the Mass Effect Trilogy really only had enough story for two games as you can skip ME2 barely miss anything that's important to ME3.

 

I can see why Bioware would want to continue the tradition of save imports/trilogies especially for ME and DA but for their next IP I hope they go the stand alone route.  They need to go back to basics and make something like KOTOR or JR again.     

You are acting as if BioWare is a novice when it comes to writing stories. How can you say something is too "difficult" or "cannot be done" when BioWare has never actually tried it? Again, Halo 4 and the Reclaimer Trilogy is an example of a series of games where their stories have been planned and defined before 343 began development. That is probably a large reason why BioWare got the lead writer of Halo 4 as their lead writer for the next Mass Effect.

 

They don't want to make the same mistakes of poor planning leading to inconsistencies and plot holes. I don't believe making a cohesive trilogy is difficult at all if you craft it in a way that makes sense. Dragon Age is unlikely to adopt the trilogy approach, which seems to be intrinsically a Mass Effect method. I don't believe the Casey Hudson IP will remotely be similar to anything we've seen from BioWare before, storytelling-wise and gameplay-wise.

 

When BioWare creates a new franchise, they build that franchise. It's not conducive to building a universe when you have a "one and done" mentality. Of course there will be sequels, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are direct sequels and tied to one another. BioWare did make save imports and choices from previous games affecting subsequent things a standard in their storytelling after all.

[Han Shot First]

In one respect a trilogy plays more to Bioware's strengths than a standalone game. Characters have always been the main focus of Bioware games, and with a trilogy you have many more hours of gameplay and more time and resources to develop the companion characters and their relationships to the main character. A companion character in a trilogy may get 15 full conversations compared to 5 in a standalone game, not to mention all the additional lines of banter with the main character or other companions both during and after missions. Across a trilogy you also have more personal quests than you would in just a single standalone. A trilogy provides many more opportunities for a writer to develop those characters and to get the player emotionally invested in what happens to them.

 

Having said that, not all stories are well-suited to being stretched out across multiple games. Without knowing more about the main plot of the next Mass Effect game it is hard to say whether it would be better as a standalone, or as the first game of a duology or trilogy. But assuming for a moment that the main plot of the next game is one well-suited to playing out across multiple games, that would certainly be my preference. 

[Iakus]

I for one hope every Mass Effect game going forward is a standalone.  Not just like DAI with a different protagonist each time, but I hope they scrap imports.  The whole Shepard trilogy soured me on it as a concept.   It makes the illusion of choice paper-thin when you make what seems to be a big choice, only to have it trivialized (rachni)  or outright ignored (human Councilor)  the following game.  Not to mention a bad enough ending outcome can make one wonder if it's worth taking the next journey (RGB).

 

Make standalone games. Make choices matter in that game.  Let the next game take care of itself.

[Revan Reborn]

I for one hope every Mass Effect game going forward is a standalone.  Not just like DAI with a different protagonist each time, but I hope they scrap imports.  The whole Shepard trilogy soured me on it as a concept.   It makes the illusion of choice paper-thin when you make what seems to be a big choice, only to have it trivialized (rachni)  or outright ignored (human Councilor)  the following game.  Not to mention a bad enough ending outcome can make one wonder if it's worth taking the next journey (RGB).

 

Make standalone games. Make choices matter in that game.  Let the next game take care of itself.

I've already explained how the rachni returning and udina as the councilor were not systemic issues of a trilogy, but instead issues of poor planning and bad execution. In fact, those issues could have easily been avoided had BioWare treated the three games as a trilogy and written the story well in advance. As far as the ending, again, that speaks to Drew leaving and Mac taking over, which created a plethora of plot holes and contradictions that would have likely never surfaced had the story been completed before the writing team changed. All of your supposed "issues" with the Shepard trilogy can be avoided.