110 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

I'd say that save import, as superficial as it was, is a huge part of ME success. Developing attachment to a character through the course of 2+ games can't be compared with a character in one self-contained game, as well-crafted as it is. I'd love for them to make another trilogy. All they need to do is not to use some absurdly powerful antagonists and not to give the protagonist a power to change an entire galactic playing field. Also, not have a Suicide Mission in the second installment of a trilogy.

 

Also, and IMO most importantly, write a plot-line for all three parts BEFORE even starting the first one.

[Vazgen]

Also, and IMO most importantly, write a plot-line for all three parts BEFORE even starting the first one.

I would not put it as too important, you know. Writers write things differently. Some plan the whole plot, some make it up on the fly. For example, Harry Potter was not fully planned.

They should surely have a general outline, but a lot of things would change through the course of development.

They should instead create a setup when the player can't deviate too much from the selected course, so that the decisions he makes would not be too hard or impossible to implement in the next installment. 

[MrFob]

I would not put it as too important, you know. Writers write things differently. Some plan the whole plot, some make it up on the fly. For example, Harry Potter was not fully planned.

They should surely have a general outline, but a lot of things would change through the course of development.

They should instead create a setup when the player can't deviate too much from the selected course, so that the decisions he makes would not be too hard or impossible to implement in the next installment. 

 

It may be that some writers make things up on the fly but if you are planning a trilogy, I think it is essential to have an outline of the entire plot in order to simply get the pacing right. I haven't read Harry Potter but from what I know, it also was never planned as a trilogy or a series with a defined number of entries. It just evolved as an open ended series, which is fine to write on the fly because if you come up with an idea of a conclusion, you can spend as much time as you want to get there. But if you already know that you are going to tell a story in 3 entries, it is immensely helpful to know where you are going because you cannot just waste one or tow entries on a side story (as was done in ME btw). Of course, the specifics can change and I am not saying that they should write every line of dialogue n advance but in a confined space to tell a story, you need to be aware of your own beginning, middle and end or you will run into trouble.

 

I am not saying you can't make it up as you go but it makes things a lot more difficult and I have yet to see an example where it didn't cause problems or at least one where it wouldn't have been advantageous to have some plot-lines started earlier than they were.

[Vazgen]

It may be that some writers make things up on the fly but if you are planning a trilogy, I think it is essential to have an outline of the entire plot in order to simply get the pacing right. I haven't read Harry Potter but from what I know, it also was never planned as a trilogy or a series with a defined number of entries. It just evolved as an open ended series, which is fine to write on the fly because if you come up with an idea of a conclusion, you can spend as much time as you want to get there. But if you already know that you are going to tell a story in 3 entries, it is immensely helpful to know where you are going because you cannot just waste one or tow entries on a side story (as was done in ME btw). Of course, the specifics can change and I am not saying that they should write every line of dialogue n advance but in a confined space to tell a story, you need to be aware of your own beginning, middle and end or you will run into trouble.

 

I am not saying you can't make it up as you go but it makes things a lot more difficult and I have yet to see an example where it didn't cause problems or at least one where it wouldn't have been advantageous to have some plot-lines started earlier than they were.

I can see where you're coming from but it is almost impossible to plan IMO. Each game produces different fan reactions and financial success, genre evolves too, other games set the bar too high or too low. There are also changes to the writing and development team, resource and time constraints... Books don't have a lot of those complications. 

Could they have planned some things beforehand? Sure. One thing is the Reaper motivation that should've been present right from ME1 (not necessarily known to the player but known to the writers). This was not the case and it caused all kinds of complications with dark energy theory, Reaper arrival and introduction of the Crucible. But not everything can be planned.

[wolfhowwl]

If they do that, then they truly learned nothing from the ending fiasco.  The problem with killing Shepard wasn't that they did it, but that there was virtually no other option.  I mean, the Warden can die in DAO, you don't see a lot of complaints about that.  Heck some people find that to be their favorite endings.

 

Not to mention there is a lot more wrong with the endings than Shepard's death.  The implications of each ending clearly wasn't well thought-out.  

 

Have you noticed that Mass Effect's marketing tends to be based largely on dumping on the previous game?  ME2 dumped on ME1.  ME3 trashed ME2.  Expect MENext to rip apart ME3.

 

The protagonist always dying is not in itself a problem. At all.

 

There are problems with the ending but the idea of Space Jesus that has been living on borrowed time since ME2 having to make the ultimate sacrifice really isn't one.

[Gwydden]

Not to mention there is a lot more wrong with the endings than Shepard's death.  The implications of each ending clearly wasn't well thought-out.  

I don't really mind the choices, per se. But the implementation was all kinds of crappy. ME3 feels like a half-assed attempt at an ending with no setup whatsoever. Which it was.

 

I agree they're missing the forest for the trees. A happy ending can be good. A bittersweet ending can be good. A downer ending can be good. Conversely, any of those can be bad. Heck, Citadel DLC was one of the most sugary sweet things BioWare has produced in recent times and many people think it makes for a more satisfying 'ending' than what we got.

[MrFob]

I can see where you're coming from but it is almost impossible to plan IMO. Each game produces different fan reactions and financial success, genre evolves too, other games set the bar too high or too low. There are also changes to the writing and development team, resource and time constraints... Books don't have a lot of those complications. 

Could they have planned some things beforehand? Sure. One thing is the Reaper motivation that should've been present right from ME1 (not necessarily known to the player but known to the writers). This was not the case and it caused all kinds of complications with dark energy theory, Reaper arrival and introduction of the Crucible. But not everything can be planned.

 

I wouldn't say it's impossible, tough yes, but not impossible. Granted, the fact that ME was a new brand made the entire thing even more unpredictable but now that they have an established brand name and can be sure sales will not be completely abysmal, they could do more long term planning if they wanted to. As Is aid, I am fine with just single games but IF they decided to make another trilogy, I would definitely expect them to plan it out better than the last one (and frankly, I'd be quite pissed if they didn't improve their procedures in the story department).

[prosthetic soul]

Well for starters I completely disagree with the OP's claim that learning from the horrible trainwreck that was ME3's ending would be misguided.

 

As to the notion of how they should address ME4's ending. I personally think the variation should come in the smaller factors while the antagonist should be removed via a single route. The example i'd give is Sovereign in ME1 who's killed but the variation comes from the priorities the player makes(protecting council/protecting human ships) & who becomes councillor(Udina/Anderson).

 

If the option exists for the protagonist to die then there should be an alternative with him/her living. No more attempts to railroad this type of thing.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I may have not made myself clear when I made that post.  Sorry for the confusion.  When I said misguided, I meant Bioware would attempt to make the ending to Mass Effect 4 SUPER ULTRA FUN TIME HAPPY in order to misguidedly appease the naysayers when in reality, it wasn't just the tone of the endings that was the problem.  It was every thing.   It was as lakua said.  Shepard dying isn't the problem.  It's that he dies in every single ending and we aren't given any choice in the matter.  You know.  In a game about choices. 

[Iakus]

The protagonist always dying is not in itself a problem. At all.

 

There are problems with the ending but the idea of Space Jesus that has been living on borrowed time since ME2 having to make the ultimate sacrifice really isn't one.

Not for you.  But for a lot of other people, yeah, it kinda was.

[prosthetic soul]

Sigh.

 

I am usually the pretentious, artistic integrity, grimdark and so gritty I pick gravel out of my teeth, but here I have to share what seems to be an unpopular opinion.

 

I liked the ending to Inquisition.

 

And why should I not? I kicked the gross, half-decomposed, rancid behind of the Big Bad. YES! I killed his enormous undead eff off dragon. YES! After working my own behind off at putting the Inquisition together, closing rifts all over the place, shmoozing with world leaders and trying to penetrate their convoluted politics. YES! And then I threw a sweet party in my awesome castle because what else are you going to do after a feat like that but get out of your skull smash drunk? YES! And then I stood on a balcony looking into a new day with hope. Which is a positive feeling. YES YES and YESSSSSSS!

 

Point is - there is nothing wrong with a happy ending.

 

I remember ME3 and their "artistic integrity" approach to the conclusion. Barely. The first time I played it I got near blackout drunk myself just to be able to stomach how damn depressing and hopeless and just so. exhaustingly. negative. it was. And there was no light at the end of the tunnel, nothing to take the edge off. Aside from the sort of volume of alcohol that made my roommate at the time seriously concerned. I have played through a number of times since (largely) without the aid of alcoholic beverages, but to this day, it still leaves me with a sick, sinking feeling.

 

Compared to that, I will take a DAI ending any day, any time.

Marry me! 

 

No but seriously, this right here is the crux of what the problem is with video game endings and video game stories in general nowadays.  Video games are trying way too hard to be artsy fartsy with the writing and instead of giving the player a reward for beating the game after God knows how much blood, sweat, and tears he/she poured into playing it, they pull some sensational nonsense at the very end that just doesn't work.    Not saying there's anything wrong with sad, or tragic endings.  They have their place in video games.  But good lord don't force it. 

 

Mass Effect series to me, was like marathoning a Super Mario game for five years.  And then at the very end, when I finally beat the game, I'm rewarded with an ending in which Mario gets an existential crisis, turns into an alcoholic, kills Peach in a blind rage, and after being chased down by Koopa, ends his own life by crashing his kart into a brick wall.

 

For Christ's sake, just let the player feel good for beating the game.  You don't need to create SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE in order for it to be memorable.   Ah,but I fear we've gone overboard into yet another ending hate circle jerk now.  Let me end on a more positive note.  I did NOT dislike the DA:I ending.  Would I have preferred if it was like Origins where multiple things could happen to your character?  Would I have preferred a bit more substance than slideshows yet again?  Indubitably.  But judging it in a vacuum, I think it was halfway decent.

 

DA:I's is certainly a step in the right direction.  If only they would just go back to how it was in Origins. 

[AresKeith]

I liked Cronos myself. The only thing that sucks about it is Jack or Miranda aren't in my squad. There aren't two teammates who deserve to be there more (besides EDI herself)... and the only way they can even be mentioned there is if they are dead

 

Well you could have Jack appear

[wolfhowwl]

I can see where you're coming from but it is almost impossible to plan IMO. Each game produces different fan reactions and financial success, genre evolves too, other games set the bar too high or too low. There are also changes to the writing and development team, resource and time constraints... Books don't have a lot of those complications. 

Could they have planned some things beforehand? Sure. One thing is the Reaper motivation that should've been present right from ME1 (not necessarily known to the player but known to the writers). This was not the case and it caused all kinds of complications with dark energy theory, Reaper arrival and introduction of the Crucible. But not everything can be planned.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't expect them to slavishly follow a plan made in ME1's pre-production, so much can change over 5+ years in your development environment as well as the story taking on a life of its own. You may fall in love with certain ideas, arcs, or characters and want to do something more or different with them.

 

Another poster here said that there was a difference between "writing ahead" as some people want and having a general vision for where the series is going. When you're wrestling with how to end your trilogy, the primary antagonist's motives, and your main themes part way through the development of your final game there's a problem.

[JeffZero]

I'd definitely rather it were a trilogy than otherwise, as I think that level of character development across multiple games is one of the absolute best things about Mass Effect. Old JRPGs used to be able to tell comparable-length character stories in a single game by having 60-hour narrative-everywhere-you-turn adventures, but that's not really how things tend to go anymore, so this works just as well.

 

That said, it'll be fine if that's not how they roll with this.

[Phoenix_Also_Rises]

@ chronoid

Hah I'm glad my attempted liver murder is a source of entertainment. But it couldn't be helped the me3 ending left me what I can only describe as emotionally eviscerated. Anyways not to circle jerk, I absolutely agree. And I also agree with what iakus said. The ending does not necessarily have to be rainbows and unicorns so long as it acknowledges your accomplishments and offers you options equivalent thereto. I went all out throughout me3, I went into the London mission with 100 % readiness only to get an end that basically went "what's your name? What's your quest? What's your favorite color?" so I'm hoping for something more reactive so to speak for the next installment

[NM_Che56]

Yeah, I don't want that either. They have too many conflicting priorities to actually do a trilogy right. The character relationships and squad don't carry over like a proper trilogy of books or movies would. Nor do movie or book trilogies market the middle or ending parts as "the best place to start". Each game is only slightly related to the last, and trying to reinvent the wheel each time around.

If the vision was a trilogy, then cool, but I hope it's not because they were thinking, "well, Mass Effect fans love them some trilogies...I guess we need to make three of these, huh?"

[Han Shot First]

I'd definitely rather it were a trilogy than otherwise, as I think that level of character development across multiple games is one of the absolute best things about Mass Effect. Old JRPGs used to be able to tell comparable-length character stories in a single game by having 60-hour narrative-everywhere-you-turn adventures, but that's not really how things tend to go anymore, so this works just as well.

 

That said, it'll be fine if that's not how they roll with this.

 

I'd rather see a trilogy as well, and for the reasons you stated. That is of course assuming that the story is structured from the start as the first part of a trilogy. Sequels don't always work when they weren't initially planned. 

[Kynare]

I don't see the point in trying to come up with the ending for a game I haven't even played. The ending will be whatever the writers decide, assuming producers don't change anything too badly.

[timebean]

In terms of endings,  I just want some damned choice.  It doesn't have to be happy or sad.  In DAO, to accomplish my mission,  I could

 

1) die (if I really didn't want to force a good friend-o-mine to be a father to a demon baby)

2) let Alistair die (for maximum romantic angst)

3) let us both live (if I wanted to do some questionable things)

4) live and be a queen/king (again, depending on doing questionable things)

 

I have played all 4 endings with the multiple side stuff associated with them and ALL were FANTASTIC!!!!  I got choice, I got a boss battle, I got visual payback for all my hard work and my choices in the game, I got revenge, Alistair got revenge (or got screwed over), I got to save some folks and screw some others over and IT WAS FUN! 

 

DAI  =  THE SAME ENDING EVERY TIME! Except for whose butt graces the sunburst throne.  I always win.  I always have the balcony scene. I always retch a little.

 

ME3 - you all know what happens. Not gonna sum up.

 

I don't care if my protag lives or dies.  I just want to have some say in the matter cause it is a GAME, after all. If I don't have any say, if my actions mean nothing, then I am NOT a part of the story.  And if that is the case, there are WAY better books out there for me to enjoy as a passive participant.  I play RPS's to be an active part of the story.  Without that, then...why I am I even playing it?

 

Just my 2 cents. I am not saying anyone else is wrong for how they feel about it .

 

For ME:N -   I hope the ending has something to do with my game choices. If not, there is always Battalestar Galacticica...

[Lars Honeytoast]

 

 

 

I don't care if my protag lives or dies.  I just want to have some say in the matter cause it is a GAME, after all. If I don't have any say, if my actions mean nothing, then I am NOT a part of the story.  And if that is the case, there are WAY better books out there for me to enjoy as a passive participant.  I play RPS's to be an active part of the story.  Without that, then...why I am I even playing it?

 

Just my 2 cents. I am not saying anyone else is wrong for how they feel about it .

 

For ME:N -   I hope the ending has something to do with my game choices. If not, there is always Battalestar Galacticica...

 

 

I'm just throwing this out there, but you can't alter the ending of the first Mass Effect either (and, just to be clear, I'm using either to go along with your thought that you can't affect ME3's ending. Despite how you may feel about how similar they are, there are definitely a few different options). The only difference is that at the end of ME3, those decisions aren't carrying over to anything.

 

In ME1, you fight Saren, win and save the universe. That never can really be changed, right? But people often complain that ME3's ending was bad because they could not affect the outcome, when in reality, the level of variability is actually higher than in the first Mass Effect. Admittedly, ME2 has the most, but that's only because the Suicide Mission may be one of the best missions in video games. I have almost the same feeling about ME3's ending as many people; I was let down, and was expecting something more akin to the Suicide Missions, but on the galactic level as opposed to the squad level. As it turns out, BioWare had the game leading up to the finale take on that responsibility, while the finale was more meant as a wrap up to all of the variability that lead up to it. It's a shame in some respects, but you can't tie the series up in a nice bow unless all of the strings lead to the same place, you know what I mean?

 

Long story short, I think complaining that the ending isn't good because your choices doesn't matter is something of a strawman argument. It was no worse in that respect than ME1, and I loved that ending.

[Iakus]

I'm just throwing this out there, but you can't alter the ending of the first Mass Effect either (and, just to be clear, I'm using either to go along with your thought that you can't affect ME3's ending. Despite how you may feel about how similar they are, there are definitely a few different options). The only difference is that at the end of ME3, those decisions aren't carrying over to anything.

 

In ME1, you fight Saren, win and save the universe. That never can really be changed, right? But people often complain that ME3's ending was bad because they could not affect the outcome, when in reality, the level of variability is actually higher than in the first Mass Effect. Admittedly, ME2 has the most, but that's only because the Suicide Mission may be one of the best missions in video games. I have almost the same feeling about ME3's ending as many people; I was let down, and was expecting something more akin to the Suicide Missions, but on the galactic level as opposed to the squad level. As it turns out, BioWare had the game leading up to the finale take on that responsibility, while the finale was more meant as a wrap up to all of the variability that lead up to it. It's a shame in some respects, but you can't tie the series up in a nice bow unless all of the strings lead to the same place, you know what I mean?

 

Long story short, I think complaining that the ending isn't good because your choices doesn't matter is something of a strawman argument. It was no worse in that respect than ME1, and I loved that ending.

The end of ME1 wasn't the end of the story, though.  Only the end of the first part of the story.  It is understood that only so much can change with the endings of ME1 and ME2, since we all have to start at more or less the same point in ME3.  It is then, at the absolute finale of the story, when there is no further installments to be concerned with, that we expect a great deal of divergence.  For the delayed gratification to finally pay off.  Instead it was basically taken as permission to kill of Shepard and little else.

[timebean]

I'm just throwing this out there, but you can't alter the ending of the first Mass Effect either (and, just to be clear, I'm using either to go along with your thought that you can't affect ME3's ending. Despite how you may feel about how similar they are, there are definitely a few different options). The only difference is that at the end of ME3, those decisions aren't carrying over to anything.

 

In ME1, you fight Saren, win and save the universe. That never can really be changed, right? But people often complain that ME3's ending was bad because they could not affect the outcome, when in reality, the level of variability is actually higher than in the first Mass Effect. Admittedly, ME2 has the most, but that's only because the Suicide Mission may be one of the best missions in video games. I have almost the same feeling about ME3's ending as many people; I was let down, and was expecting something more akin to the Suicide Missions, but on the galactic level as opposed to the squad level. As it turns out, BioWare had the game leading up to the finale take on that responsibility, while the finale was more meant as a wrap up to all of the variability that lead up to it. It's a shame in some respects, but you can't tie the series up in a nice bow unless all of the strings lead to the same place, you know what I mean?

 

Long story short, I think complaining that the ending isn't good because your choices doesn't matter is something of a strawman argument. It was no worse in that respect than ME1, and I loved that ending.

Huh.  Good point.  You honestly got me there!

 

I likes ME1's ending as well. And you are correct in what you say.  I wonder why it didn't bother me?  Maybe because the story felt so contained, that I didn't really mind it?  Hmmm...I guess I need to think about that a little...

 

The thing is, I really didn't hate ME3's ending so much, because at least the ending had something to do with my war assets.  This is why I did not 'summarize" it in my post.  I mean,...at least I had some motivation to work for it. I had to work to get the synthesis ending (even If I did nto like it). I usually don't rant at all about ME3 ending, to be honest (it depends on my mood).

 

But DAI...it felt less like a game and more like a story...and a rather bland one.  Hence my rant, I guess.  That game felt pointless and just hope Me:N doesn't go that route. 

 

But as someone else said...worrying about the ending when we don't even know what the game is about?...kinda pointless anyhow!

[Lars Honeytoast]

The end of ME1 wasn't the end of the story, though.  Only the end of the first part of the story.  It is understood that only so much can change with the endings of ME1 and ME2, since we all have to start at more or less the same point in ME3.  It is then, at the absolute finale of the story, when there is no further installments to be concerned with, that we expect a great deal of divergence.  For the delayed gratification to finally pay off.  Instead it was basically taken as permission to kill of Shepard and little else.

 

I can understand that. I would argue that ME3 itself was the payoff-- Each situation could play out differently, and in some cases, should be handled differently depending on your decisions in past games (for example, if Wrex is dead, not delivering the cure is much more viable in my mind). That being said, after the amazing last mission of ME2, I get the desire to have something similar.  

 

But I have to say, after several more trilogy playthroughs, I really like the decision to have the last mission be more reflective. There's a very introspective aura to it once I hit Earth and reflect on everything it took to get me there, with only a single, final push until the ultimate resolution to the struggle. It creates a nice bookend for the series, while if the mission had multiple diverging paths, it would be easy to not see the forest for the trees, so to speak. That being said, I have my own gripes with that last mission. The phone call endings for many of the characters seemed like a weak resolution to some of the relationships, particularly if one was a love interest. I still wish the final mission would have been the last third of the game, with more interaction with squadmates and old factions that you have worked with. While I don't have an issue with the 'concrete' endings, I wish that the Citadel DLC level of squad interaction had simply been placed in to the final mission.

 

I just realized this thread is definitely not about about the endings though, let's continue this elsewhere if you want. Either PM me or let's take it to another thread.

 

About this thread's subject though-- I really, really would like a new trilogy. I know it's a small minded way to think about it, but since Mass Effect has pretty much always been about creating this sprawling, ripple effect story, it just seems wrong to me to contain this gen's game to one iteration. (Honestly, I'm far less likely to play DA:I again, because I really loved my first character, and knowing that (if the DA pattern holds up) I won't get to play as him again really brings me down.)

[MrFob]

The end of ME1 wasn't the end of the story, though.  Only the end of the first part of the story.  It is understood that only so much can change with the endings of ME1 and ME2, since we all have to start at more or less the same point in ME3.  It is then, at the absolute finale of the story, when there is no further installments to be concerned with, that we expect a great deal of divergence.  For the delayed gratification to finally pay off.  Instead it was basically taken as permission to kill of Shepard and little else.

 

The weird part of all of this is that the ending actually does depend on a lot of variables of what the player did during the games, especially in the Extended Cut. For example, there is a huge logic sequence that determines which squad mate will tell Joker to leave the Sol system. It depends on who your LI is, who is classified as a friend (a value that is determined throughout a very complex comparison on how you interact with squad mates during ME2 and 3), who you took on most missions, etc. etc. It's huge and it must have been really complex to set this up properly in the first place. Same goes for how it is determined who steps out of the crashed Normandy in the end. Some slide variations also have quite complex variable checks to them.

In that sense, the endings are in fact highly personalized, so this work has been done. The problem IMO is that all this work was put into the wrong places. I really don't care if it is Garrus who tells Joker to leave or Liara. I also really don't care that much if James is the third person to leave the Normandy on the jungle planet.

What I care about is the hero I played and who's decisions I influenced has a fitting conclusion, as in: a cathartic moment. That is what all those variables should have determined (or at least a player choice should have). In the case of e.g. Dragon Age Origins, my hero gets this, my witty rogue can trick fate into letting everyone live but with strings attached as always, my uncompromising Warrior gets to defeat the enemy and punish a traitor in the process, my wise mage helps a misguided man redeem himself through sacrifice and my noble champion gets to sacrifice himself for the greater good. The point here is that the final moment needs to fit the character.

My Shepard however doesn't necessarily have that moment. It's possible to have it if you roleplayed your Shepard in a certain way and with a certain mindset but the diversity that you would need to satisfy all kinds of different archetypes is not there. Ultimately, Shepard is backed into a corner in the end. S/he gets to react to whatever the catalyst does and says, not to act of his/her own accord one final time, where the possibility to act arises from the actions Shepard has taken before (that's what a catharsis needs).

 

So yes, maybe the ending was a bookend in a way.The problem is: ME was never a book. I do hope that the next iteration of the series, whether that is a single game or a trilogy, will keep that in mind.