39 réponses à ce sujet

[CEO]

Let me just say this upfront: Mass effect 1, 2 and 3 are my favourite games of all time, to me they are just one long epic adventure so I have trouble singling one out. I also don't think the last 10 minutes can ruin a game, let alone a huge trilogy like mass effect.

Having said that, those 10 minutes were quite bad. I think the problem was that it didn't feel like you built towards making any of those possible endings possible, they are just there regardless. Despite all the choices and world views you expressed during those 3 games, there they are, just pick one.

Even though I prefer having a choice in as much as possible I actually feel it would have been much better if the way you played determined the ending for you. No choice in the end would actually feel like your actions had a much bigger impact, the ending as a consequence of all your past choices not just a "here pick one" in a void where nothing else seems to matter. It would still be a choice, just not a direct one, it would be the collective of your choices and respective consequences, deciding for you.

You know, like in real life, you choices condition your options, they open some, close others, making those choices is how you decide and become the kind of person you want to be, or even what kind of legacy you might leave (if any at all). It doesn't happen magically in your death bed.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is, sometimes having the consequences of your choices imposed on you (for better or worse) actually feels a lot more personal than picking a colour.

Thank you for reading.

[Revan Reborn]

We've definitely seen this thread a hundred times since ME3 released... One thing I'd like to point out. Certainly, the execution of the endings were not the best. However, I think it's unrealistic to believe that the final choice was going to be a culmination of everything you experienced in the trilogy. That's silly, impractical, and merely sets yourself up for disappointment from the start. Instead, BioWare decided to offer the truth behind the reapers and the ultimate moral/philosophical question of what fate for the galaxy you would choose. I don't believe it's a bad approach at all, but simply one many, if anyone, did not expect. Honestly, I didn't even expect there could really be a "happy" ending considering the galaxy was entirely outmatched by the reapers throughout all three games.

[Dr. rotinaj]

See I completely agree, and many others would agree in theory. Something similar to what you described happens in DAI and I'll leave it in spoiler tags cuz Idk if DAI spoilers are allowed here

Spoiler

The successor to Divine Justinia depends almost entirely on your actions, dialogue, and choices throughout the game. There is a part of the game where you can try to directly influence the outcome. But if your character has been consistent in their beliefs on Chantry policy, that influence has little effect.

What I really love about it is that even the smallest offhand political remark influences the ending. It makes the game feel more personal because the beliefs you give your character are actually recognized by the game.

 

Now I said many others would agree in theory because people raged about this on the DAI forums. As much as people here claim that they want consequences from their choices, many of them really want to choose their consequences.

Spoiler

For example, people would complain that they got Vivienne as divine instead of Leliana but they've been playing a very pro-Circle, pro-status-quo character

As great as this idea is, we'd see so many complaints about there being a "lack of choice" because players can't construct their specific ideal paradise for their Mary Sue protagonist.

[CEO]

I didn't even expect there could really be a "happy" ending

I don't recall saying anything about an happy ending, do you?
And as far as having previous choices decide the ultimate outcome out of the 3 possible choices: it's not unfeasable or unrealistic at all. Obviously, very obviously really, not all choices would be relevant, only the ones related to the 3 outcomes, that showed your views about the subject of sintetics, their evolution and their coexistence with organics. Which would limit them to a very manageable number of main decisions.

About this have being said before, well I guess you care more about that than I do.
I actually think it's a lot more relevant to revisit the subject now that the "mass effect 3 sucked because of the last 10 minutes" bandwagon has passed and the first title in a new trilogy is entering late development. I also think the way to manage player choice is always relevant while a game like mass effect, where said choice and narrative is king, is being written and developed. But thank you for your feedback.

[timebean]

But...doesn't the ME3 ending kinda do that?   If you don't do enough gathering of war assets in the game, you don't get the points to have synthesis as an option at all. And if your points are low and you pick Destroy, the outcome is a bummer versus picking destroy when you worked hard to get high EMS. Thus, there is some effect of your choices in the final showdown. Also, how you dealt with the illusive man throughout the game affects your final showdown with him. I guess it just didn't bother me that much.

 

In my opinion, DAO had the best choice and consequences setup. Your choices were pretty well actualized in the final battle (e.g. werewolves versus elves) and if you didn't get bonding with teamates, then options were also limited (e.g. having high enough charisma to convince to Alistair to bed Morrigan).  Even small choices like killing a random noble jerk could come back to bite you in the bum (ie. votes in the Landsmeet)...or how you dealt with Anora (e.g. if she betrays you or not). And then the hardening versus non hardening and who you romanced also affected the epilogue slides. Not to sound like a fangirl of that game, but it really set the bar for having a meaningful RPG experience...in terms of how your actions were really important.

 

ME2 also did a pretty good job of making your choices matter...in terms of team loyalty, upgrades to the ship, and even who you chose to lead the fire-team.  All of it could really change the outcome alot.

 

I do agree that the ME3 ending was...what's a diplomatic word...contrived?  But in general, i think Bioware has a decent track record of making your choices meaningful in the end...except for DAI, which was terrible failure at making anything you did seem meaningful. (oh, the wound is till fresh!!  )

[CEO]

I absolutely agree, that is exactly the sort of thing I am taking about and Dragon Age: Inquisiton actually pulled it off pretty well: it was the player who decided what you just refered, but not by choosing a colour, that decision was made by playing, by making decisions, by expressing your views.

The main difference it that in dragon age, even though ultimately you were the only one making the choice (in the mechanics behind the game that tracked your choices) in the game you supposedly were only giving your support to someone, the actual decision was by others. In Mass Effect 3 you were the only one voting.

[dreamgazer]

I absolutely agree, that is exactly the sort of thing I am taking about and Dragon Age: Inquisiton actually pulled it off pretty well: it was the player who decided what you just refered, but not by choosing a colour, that decision was made by playing, by making decisions, by expressing your views.

Except when it comes to landing on a Divine. What a mess.

[timebean]

I absolutely agree, that is exactly the sort of thing I am taking about and Dragon Age: Inquisiton actually pulled it off pretty well: it was the player who decided what you just refered, but not by choosing a colour, that decision was made by playing, by making decisions, by expressing your views.

The main difference it that in dragon age, even though ultimately you were the only one making the choice (in the mechanics behind the game that tracked your choices) in the game you supposedly were only giving your support to someone, the actual decision was by others. In Mass Effect 3 you were the only one voting.

I see your point...but in terms of the experience...I think it was pretty intense.  I mean, there I was...on death's door.  And I had to make a decision that affected the entire galaxy.  The moment was intense and satisfying...and stressful as hell! My choice determines the fate of the entire galaxy!  And if i did some stuff to get us ready for it, I could pick Destroy and things looked hopeful.  But if I went in unprepared, and picked destroy, then the galaxy was pretty much doomed because of my actions.  And if i picked synthesis...if I did enough to even allow that option...then I basically changed the friggen DNA of all life!!!  I dug it.

 

I do like when our choices throughout the game are more meaningful and a bit more explicit (as in DAO)...but in terms of personal experience...I thought it was pretty cool at the end of ME3 to be faced with such a decision.  The moment was MUCH more meaningful  than DAI's boring final battle and random epilogue slides that tried to convince me what I did had some impact.  But I did not EXPERIENCE it, as I did in ME3. 

 

Maybe that was the difference that makes me prefer ME3's ending to DAi's.  Again, this is just my personal preference! Folks like different things!

[fyz306903]

Let me just say this upfront: Mass effect 1, 2 and 3 are my favourite games of all time, to me they are just one long epic adventure so I have trouble singling one out. I also don't think the last 10 minutes can ruin a game, let alone a huge trilogy like mass effect.

Having said that, those 10 minutes were quite bad. I think the problem was that it didn't feel like you built towards making any of those possible endings possible, they are just there regardless. Despite all the choices and world views you expressed during those 3 games, there they are, just pick one.

Even though I prefer having a choice in as much as possible I actually feel it would have been much better if the way you played determined the ending for you. No choice in the end would actually feel like your actions had a much bigger impact, the ending as a consequence of all your past choices not just a "here pick one" in a void where nothing else seems to matter. It would still be a choice, just not a direct one, it would be the collective of your choices and respective consequences, deciding for you.

You know, like in real life, you choices condition your options, they open some, close others, making those choices is how you decide and become the kind of person you want to be, or even what kind of legacy you might leave (if any at all). It doesn't happen magically in your death bed.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is, sometimes having the consequences of your choices imposed on you (for better or worse) actually feels a lot more personal than picking a colour.

Thank you for reading.

 

Also, remember he said: 'We'll (WE WILL) have to build a pretty good-sized space ship to colonize another planet' If the ark theory wasn't true, he'd say WE WOULD...

Not sure if I saw a slip of the tongue or that I'm just over-analysing. 

[CEO]

As great as this idea is, we'd see so many complaints about there being a "lack of choice" because players can't construct their specific ideal paradise for their Mary Sue protagonist.

I see what you are saying, but while there are always complains no matter what, in this case if said Mary Sue didn't have the perfect ending the players could only blame themselves. If a player spent the entire game making decisions and expressing an opinion that ultimately lead to an outcome that followed those decisions and they didn't like said outcome... Well that is on the player, you can't go around supporting an ideal and then complain when it actually happens.

This mechanic actually puts even more weight on the players and their decisions. Showing them that their actions have consequences. In the end isn't that what so much in a game like mass effect is about? Player choice? Shaping a character and a world (or Galaxy) according to the player's actions?

[CEO]

I see your point...but in terms of the experience...I think it was pretty intense. I mean, there I was...on death's door. And I had to make a decision that affected the entire galaxy. The moment was intense and satisfying...and stressful as hell! My choice determines the fate of the entire galaxy! And if i did some stuff to get us ready for it, I could pick Destroy and things looked hopeful. But if I went in unprepared, and picked destroy, then the galaxy was pretty much doomed because of my actions. And if i picked synthesis...if I did enough to even allow that option...then I basically changed the friggen DNA of all life!!! I dug it.

I do like when our choices throughout the game are more meaningful and a bit more explicit (as in DAO)...but in terms of personal experience...I thought it was pretty cool at the end of ME3 to be faced with such a decision. The moment was MUCH more meaningful than DAI's boring final battle and random epilogue slides that tried to convince me what I did had some impact. But I did not EXPERIENCE it, as I did in ME3.

Maybe that was the difference that makes me prefer ME3's ending to DAi's. Again, this is just my personal preference! Folks like different things!

Except you didn't really experience it, did you? Think about it. You picked a colour and saw the corresponding epilogue. And if you spend 3 games in a middle of war making hard choices that helped the geth keep their independence and saying that they were not just appliances, watching EDI develop from an AI with a block to a free thinking individual, all that kind of rules out you all of sudden wanting to destroy them all.
I'm not defending the dragon age model as perfection. But I do think that giving your actions consequences is better than picking a colour and watching an epilogue.
Maybe those epilogues need to be bigger, with some playability to make you feel more evolved and see for your self a glimpse of the world state and where the future is going.

[Dr. rotinaj]

I see what you are saying, but while there are always complains no matter what, in this case if said Mary Sue didn't have the perfect ending the players could only blame themselves. If a player spent the entire game making decisions and expressing an opinion that ultimately lead to an outcome that followed those decisions and they didn't like said outcome... Well that is on the player, you can't go around supporting an ideal and then complain when it actually happens.

This mechanic actually puts even more weight on the players and their decisions. Showing them that their actions have consequences. In the end isn't that what so much in a game like mass effect is about? Player choice? Shaping a character and a world (or Galaxy) according to the player's actions?

I agree completely. But even though you say people can't support an ideal and then complain when it happens, that's exactly what happened in DAI. Now maybe I'm focusing on a vocal minority, but a lot of the feedback I've seen has shown that Bioware fans don't like choices with consequences, they like to choose consequences.

 

Also note that I said ideal ending, not perfect ending. Most people had no problem with ME2's suicide mission because you just had to make the right choices to get out without casualties. That's a perfect ending, it is  objectively better than the other outcomes. What I'm referring to is a situation more like this: In the Witcher there's a small encounter with some shady elves. You can choose to give them weapons as part of a quest. If you do so, much later on they use the weapons to kill someone who you need to talk to as part of an unrelated quest. That's the difference here. With the suicide mission example, there's a very clear correlation between choice and result. Not so much in the second one. In the Witcher's case, you have a less obvious consequence thrust on you later on. DAI had a similar event. Near the beginning of the game there's a short conversation that drastically influences a character's personality later in the game. The consequence of the dialogue you choose in the convo is not immediately clear until very late game. And people were up in arms about it.

 

Bioware has been pretty decent with feedback being incorporated into their games and like I said before I might be focusing on a vocal minority, but I don't know if the fans actually want this type of ending. I'd be so down for it though.

[BabyPuncher]

I really don't see any fundamental difference.

 

The player is still 'choosing' whatever option they get. It's just done through a series of past choices instead of one big one, assuming the writing is done well.

 

And therein lies the rub: writing. The developers would need to be very, very careful that that previous choices actually thematically align with the conclusion. Which is difficult and very easy to screw up. Imagine if ME 3 ended with Shepard automatically choosing Synthesis if the player had made choices to support the geth and AIs and conversely if the only way to get Destroy was to constantly say AIs are stupid and subhuman and all need to die throughout the series. Players would be rightfully be very furious.

 

Well, more furious than they were.

[Revan Reborn]

I don't recall saying anything about an happy ending, do you?
And as far as having previous choices decide the ultimate outcome out of the 3 possible choices: it's not unfeasable or unrealistic at all. Obviously, very obviously really, not all choices would be relevant, only the ones related to the 3 outcomes, that showed your views about the subject of sintetics, their evolution and their coexistence with organics. Which would limit them to a very manageable number of main decisions.

About this have being said before, well I guess you care more about that than I do.
I actually think it's a lot more relevant to revisit the subject now that the "mass effect 3 sucked because of the last 10 minutes" bandwagon has passed and the first title in a new trilogy is entering late development. I also think the way to manage player choice is always relevant while a game like mass effect, where said choice and narrative is king, is being written and developed. But thank you for your feedback.

I never claimed you did. I was merely pointing out that I expected the ending to be far more bleak than it actually was.

 

I disagree merely for the fact the entire trilogy was never about organics vs synthetics. That was a theme that was largely promoted due to Mac Walters taking over as lead writer. This is another reason why an ending culminating all three games was not possible due to the change in writing leadership.

 

After BioWare included the EC, Leviathan DLC, and provided a bit more context, I don't mind the endings nearly as much. On the contrary, the fact that they are controversial and none of them are canon provides everybody with a choice of which their favorite is. One of my biggest issues with Mass Effect is that there was ultimately a lack of choice in the trilogy. You either were Paragon or Renegade and you stuck to that path. Do you save the Council? Do you make Anderson the Human Councilor? Do you destroy the plans from the Collector base? I actually found the last choice in ME3 to offer more player choice in terms of not being bound by a Paragon/Renegade choice. It's purely subjective of what you believe is "best" for the galaxy. I'd like to see more of that, or even better, toss out Paragon/Renegade entirely.

[timebean]

Except you didn't really experience it, did you? Think about it. You picked a colour and saw the corresponding epilogue. And if you spend 3 games in a middle of war making hard choices that helped the geth keep their independence and saying that they were not just appliances, watching EDI develop from an AI with a block to a free thinking individual, all that kind of rules out you all of sudden wanting to destroy them all.
I'm not defending the dragon age model as perfection. But I do think that giving your actions consequences is better than picking a colour and watching an epilogue.
Maybe those epilogues need to be bigger, with some playability to make you feel more evolved and see for your self a glimpse of the world state and where the future is going.

A valid point. I see what you mean.

 

The choice-consequence of DAI was abysmal in my opinion. Very little of the choices I made had any bearing on anything that happened within the game. I played 3 complete playthroughs with very different characters and all I got was slightly different epilogue slides.  I found it extremely disappointing. I didn't even need to play 2/3 of the game, because nothing I was doing (war assets, personal missions, etc) had any bearing on the outcome at all.

 

I feel like DAO was the game that really made what you did FEEL like it matters... and that was a mixture of great writing (ie, immersion) and game mechanics (ie, actual divergent paths based on choices).  IE, I didn't really experience anything in any of the games...I am after all, just a passive presence in the world as the player...but in DAO and to a lesser extent ME2 and ME3...I did feel like I was making an actual difference in the world.  In DAI...not at all.  It was the exact same game over and over no matter what I did...except for some slides at the end that were wholly disconnected from my character and my story.

 

So I guess...I would personally prefer a more choice-consequences system like they did in DAO...or something totally new. I really hope they don't use DAI as a template because it felt ...i don't know.  Empty.

 

EDITED - for clarification - I agree with you about choices having more bearing on the ending.  What I disagree with is using DAI as the template.  (Sorry...i tend to gather my thoughts as I write, so I often repeat myself and have a bunch of bulbous nonsense in there.  )

[Torgette]

First time I played through Mass Effect 3 I had lost my 1+2 save files and hadn't touched the multiplayer so it was really surprising to see so many deaths, it made big moments like the coup feel more sinister.

 

When I marathoned all 3 though, some things felt less impactful - ie back to the coup: Thane saves a councilor and makes Kai Lang look less imposing, it also prevents me from getting blackmailed which was an interesting dynamic the first time. On the flip side I got to experience Thane's death scene which was one of the best moments in the entire trilogy.

 

In both cases it was the moments I had little control over that felt more impactful, whereas the moments that I could rectify and make everything perfect felt cheapened even though it's supposed to be a choice-driven rpg. Taking this premise all the way to the ending, Shep sacrificing herself no matter what in some ways feels cheapened too because you win no matter what - there's only one fail state. Obviously there's the secret ending where she survives but I had no knowledge of this and didn't want to metagame it. To me it would've been interesting had there been more railroaded fail states at the ending, or if every ending choice had some failure attached to it like Synthesis wiping out everybody's individualism or Control being something of a Sith-like ending where Shep thinks they're in control but not really, and just let Shep die in destroy and maybe sacrifice earth in the process.

 

So there are some scenarios where taking control of the moment away from the player imo is more meaningful to role playing than giving them all the power in the world to prevent every mistake.

[Reorte]

What I'm referring to is a situation more like this: In the Witcher there's a small encounter with some shady elves. You can choose to give them weapons as part of a quest. If you do so, much later on they use the weapons to kill someone who you need to talk to as part of an unrelated quest. That's the difference here. With the suicide mission example, there's a very clear correlation between choice and result. Not so much in the second one. In the Witcher's case, you have a less obvious consequence thrust on you later on

And I seriously doubt that people would've complained about that sort of choice - if it was some of the time. They'll complain if you have damned if you do, damned if you don't style choices and nothing elser throughout the game. And as praised as the Suicide Mission often is you'll also notice that a lot of people also complain about it being too easy. People want to have to earn their victories. Saying people want to chose their consequences is misleading and overlooks the issue - look at the parts that have pretty universal agreement towards being good, they're not always perfect outcomes.

 

In a way though yes, people do want to chose consequences, of course they do, but by means of doing the right things and working to get those consequences. If it's a case of chosing the consequence you want off a plate at the last minute those people will rightfully complain that that was rubbish. Not as much as if the final result ****** them off of course, but they still won't say it's good.

[Mcfly616]

the first title in a new trilogy is entering late development. 

 Speculation on your part. Nothing more.

[Mcfly616]

CDPR's approach to choices/consequences with The Witcher series is far superior to anything Bioware has done with Mass Effect. Seriously, choices should not be transparent. I shouldn't be able to look at the dialogue tree and foresee the future consequences of each choice. I don't want to pick and choose consequences, nor do I want to pick and choose my story or its ending. I want to experience my story. It should feel more organic. Seemingly irrelevant choices during seemingly irrelevant conversations should come back later in the narrative to either bite me in the ass or turn up a pleasant surprise.

 

The narrative/mission availability/setting should branch drastically based on choices of which we can't immediately foresee the impact of making them.

[BabyPuncher]

CDPR's approach to choices/consequences with The Witcher series is far superior to anything Bioware has done with Mass Effect. Seriously, choices should not be transparent. I shouldn't be able to look at the dialogue tree and foresee the future consequences of each choice. I don't want to pick and choose consequences, nor do I want to pick and choose my story or its ending. I want to experience my story. It should feel more organic. Seemingly irrelevant choices during seemingly irrelevant conversations should come back later in the narrative to either bite me in the ass or turn up a pleasant surprise.

 

The narrative/mission availability/setting should branch drastically based on choices of which we can't immediately foresee the impact of making them.

 

That is absolutely ridiculous and contrary to the entire point of stories. Why you don't actually stop and think for a minute about how stupid that is?

 

How would it be if the ending to the trilogy was based on whether, say, Shepard agreed to the interview with Emily Wong in ME 1 for a few credits? I could very easily come up with a completely plausible, completely realistic reason of how that interview leads to a civilian knowing Shepard who otherwise wouldn't, and that same civilian popping up preforming a small action in ME 3 which saves Shepard's life. Otherwise, Shepard dies. All other choices are pushed to the side.

 

Would that be 'organic'? No, it would be completely idiotic.

[RoboticWater]

That is absolutely ridiculous and contrary to the entire point of stories. Why you don't actually stop and think for a minute about how stupid that is?

 

How would it be if the ending to the trilogy was based on whether, say, Shepard agreed to the interview with Emily Wong in ME 1? I could very easily come up with a completely plausible, completely realistic reason of how that interview leads to a civilian knowing Shepard who otherwise wouldn't, and that same civilian popping up preforming a small action in ME 3 which saves Shepard's life. Otherwise, Shepard dies. All other choices are pushed to the side.

 

Would that be 'organic'? No, it would be completely idiotic.

What is 'the point of stories?' Can they not surprise you?

[wright1978]

Hmm personally i think it would have been vastly better to have had the range choice & consequence happened at a much earlier stage rather than getting ambushed 5 seconds from the end by a DEM.

For some things i think the your previous choices leading to consequences works well, such as the choice of Divine in DAI.

[BabyPuncher]

Of course they can. But the surprise needs to thematically align with the story. 

 

I am continually appalled at how few people are able to grasp the simple concept that stories need to actually be more than a bunch of pointless events happening one after other. That's not a story. That's a bunch of things happening. Real life very usually is a bunch of pointless events happening after one after another. The amount of people who think the path to better writing and better stories is to imitate what 'usually happens' in real life by making stories more pointless is staggering.

 

The absolute worst thing a story can be is pointless.

[Mcfly616]

That is absolutely ridiculous and contrary to the entire point of stories. Why you don't actually stop and think for a minute about how stupid that is?

 

How would it be if the ending to the trilogy was based on whether, say, Shepard agreed to the interview with Emily Wong in ME 1 for a few credits? I could very easily come up with a completely plausible, completely realistic reason of how that interview leads to a civilian knowing Shepard who otherwise wouldn't, and that same civilian popping up preforming a small action in ME 3 which saves Shepard's life. Otherwise, Shepard dies. All other choices are pushed to the side.

 

Would that be 'organic'? No, it would be completely idiotic.

 Why don't you stop and think about how idiotic your post is 

 

 

You're the only one proposing some interview with some reporter will decide the fate of the entire galaxy and the life of its savior. Quite the extremist, aren't you....

[RoboticWater]

Of course they can. But the surprise needs to thematically align with the story. 

 

I am continually appalled at how few people are able to grasp the simple concept that stories need to actually be more than a bunch of pointless events happening one after other. That's not a story. That's a bunch of things happening. Real life very usually is a bunch of pointless events happening after one after another. The amount of people who think the path to better writing and better stories is to imitate what 'usually happens' in real life by making stories more pointless is staggering.

 

The absolute worst thing a story can be is pointless.

But why can't stories reflect this aspect of reality if the point of the story is to show the randomness of real life? It doesn't make for inherently better writing nor does it make worse. It's just different.

 

I think wanting some stories to embrace the randomness of reality is a completely reasonable thing, especially in sci-fi/fantasy where stuff can often happen only because of divine will and heroic deeds. Many people have heard that story, might be a bit tired of it, and want to see a different take to be surprised again.