88 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

I just finished a complete three game play through of Mass Effect and I don't understand a lot of the arguments.  The lore in the games isn't really tied to the locations unless you count the Prothean lore, the majority of what we learn about the primary players is through dialogue with the people we are meeting the other lore is tied to the location we are at. As far as choices the major choices never really carried through and the other ones I can't see impacting a completely different character for I don't think it really matters to some stranger who Shepard Romanced.  The other choices have been dropped pretty quickly such as the Rachni or the colonists from Mass Effect 1 or the state of the Collector Base in Mass Effect 2.

 

What I would like to see different in the new games instead of having major choices and the hope they make an impact in future games is they have an impact on the game we are playing and then tie it up so going forward there is only one path, sort of like an infinity path.  An example would be the Collector Base in Mass Effect 2, if Shepard didn't decide to blow it up, Harbinger did instead when he broke the connection.  That was in the next game even though we made a choice its in the same state.

[Drone223]

That doesn't make any sense. Your choices in the trilogy don't require more sequels for validation. You made the choices, they matter to your Shepard and your world-state. Changing setting does nothing to change that.

Expect leaving the galaxy forever renders the whole idea of saving it moot.
 

This franchise is built on space magic. This "it doesn't fit the lore" excuse for not going to the Andromeda galaxy lacks merit.

 

Except said lore should never be broken and the whole concept of leaving the galaxy would come out of nowhere. It has no build up or foreshadowing it just happens, mot to mention it relies heavily of contrivances and hand waving.

[Steppenwolf]

Expect leaving the galaxy forever renders the whole idea of saving it moot.

Saying that over and over doesn't make it any less moronic.

Except said lore should never be broken and the whole concept of leaving the galaxy would come out of nowhere. It has no build up or foreshadowing it just happens, mot to mention it relies heavily of contrivances and hand waving.

You mean like pretty much everything in the series? It's all space magic, contrivances and hand waving.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What I would like to see different in the new games instead of having major choices and the hope they make an impact in future games is they have an impact on the game we are playing and then tie it up so going forward there is only one path, sort of like an infinity path.  An example would be the Collector Base in Mass Effect 2, if Shepard didn't decide to blow it up, Harbinger did instead when he broke the connection.  That was in the next game even though we made a choice its in the same state.

So instead of choices being "What happens" have them be more "How it happens"?

[Drone223]

You mean like pretty much everything in the series? It's all space magic, contrivances and hand waving.

 

Nope space magic is used for the poorly written aspects of the series such as the lazarus project and synthesis. Element zero and biotics are set up to make it seem like its believable within the laws of the ME universe.

 

Saying that over and over doesn't make it any less moronic.

 

Not really since the galaxy would lose its relevance to the series.

[Heimdall]

Not really since the galaxy would lose its relevance to the series.

And that doesn't translate to "might as well not have saved the Galaxy"

[Sanunes]

So instead of choices being "What happens" have them be more "How it happens"?

 

Yeah, for I would think it might be easier to include the choices a little more if the physical outcome is the same because you wouldn't have nearly as much work locked behind a choice from a prior game. There are plenty of different dialogue options locked behind either "investigate" or paragon/renegade options. I think it worked well in Mass Effect 3 when they were dealing with outcome of the Arrival DLC from Mass Effect 2, but instead of being if it was destroyed or not it was who destroyed it.

[Torgette]

Yeah, for I would think it might be easier to include the choices a little more if the physical outcome is the same because you wouldn't have nearly as much work locked behind a choice from a prior game. There are plenty of different dialogue options locked behind either "investigate" or paragon/renegade options. I think it worked well in Mass Effect 3 when they were dealing with outcome of the Arrival DLC from Mass Effect 2, but instead of being if it was destroyed or not it was who destroyed it.

 

I like the idea of "world states" rather than "game A creates the story of game B", big main quest story choices should only affect that story and not the next story. As far as a trilogy goes, the same would apply still, only the world state building would be dragged out over 3 games instead of everything getting influenced in one game.

[wargamesrawsum]

While i would enjoy revisiting the places of the trilogy i dont want them to hold the game down and unfortunately i feel if we were to visit them it would hold the game down limiting to a linear storyline and combat style of the original games but i do find it interesting in there demonstration they had a citadel so...idk.

[Iakus]

That doesn't make any sense. Your choices in the trilogy don't require more sequels for validation. You made the choices, they matter to your Shepard and your world-state. Changing setting does nothing to change that.
 

I actually agree with this.  Which is why I say if this isn't supposed to be a direct sequel, then they shouldn't be beholden to the endings at all.

 

 

This franchise is built on space magic. This "it doesn't fit the lore" excuse for not going to the Andromeda galaxy lacks merit.

 

The story's been at its weakest when it ignores the lore.  The fact that it's twisted it into a pretzel in the past shouldn't be an excuse to keep on doing it.

[Steppenwolf]

The story's been at its weakest when it ignores the lore.  The fact that it's twisted it into a pretzel in the past shouldn't be an excuse to keep on doing it.

No one seems to care too much when the lore is tweaked or ignored. The Catalyst is bad writing, not lore-breaking. Everyone seems to say ME2 is the best of the trilogy but most of the relevant lore in ME2 is rubbish and inconsistent. Shepard was dead but just a few hours into the game they start saying he wasn't actually dead, just messed up. Cerberus had only just gone rogue a few years prior but they already had a better infrastructure and more resources than any Council race. TIM was already under the sway of the Reapers but he acted in opposition to the Reapers' and even Cerberus' best interests at almost every turn. The Reapers are just ships piloted by big robots made from people-goo but when we get inside of a Reaper there is no such robot, just a sentient ship.
They've never adhered to the lore and most people never cared very much.

[Iakus]

No one seems to care too much when the lore is tweaked or ignored. The Catalyst is bad writing, not lore-breaking. Everyone seems to say ME2 is the best of the trilogy but most of the relevant lore in ME2 is rubbish and inconsistent. Shepard was dead but just a few hours into the game they start saying he wasn't actually dead, just messed up. Cerberus had only just gone rogue a few years prior but they already had a better infrastructure and more resources than any Council race. TIM was already under the sway of the Reapers but he acted in opposition to the Reapers' and even Cerberus' best interests at almost every turn. The Reapers are just ships piloted by big robots made from people-goo but when we get inside of a Reaper there is no such robot, just a sentient ship.
They've never adhered to the lore and most people never cared very much.

I care...

[Drone223]

No one seems to care too much when the lore is tweaked or ignored. The Catalyst is bad writing, not lore-breaking. Everyone seems to say ME2 is the best of the trilogy but most of the relevant lore in ME2 is rubbish and inconsistent. Shepard was dead but just a few hours into the game they start saying he wasn't actually dead, just messed up. Cerberus had only just gone rogue a few years prior but they already had a better infrastructure and more resources than any Council race. TIM was already under the sway of the Reapers but he acted in opposition to the Reapers' and even Cerberus' best interests at almost every turn. The Reapers are just ships piloted by big robots made from people-goo but when we get inside of a Reaper there is no such robot, just a sentient ship.
They've never adhered to the lore and most people never cared very much.

Lore breaking things are often considered poor written and badly implemented. If the lore is to be improved things that are poorly written and implemented need to be pointed out.

[spinachdiaper]

ME3's endings have ruined everything possible going forward in the milkyway and the bathwater was dumped in order to save the ME franchise baby.