841 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Write better paraphrases. DAI is the only BioWare game with a voiced protagonist that has done this even vaguely well. ME, ME2, and DA2 were all terrible at it.

No auto-dialogue.

Let us retreat. Don't lock doors behind us.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I agree with this and I've never really understood why there are so many complaints about this. Not because I don't understand why people might consider it annoying, but it is one of those things that has a very clear and specific reason why it is done how it is done.

 

The thing is, most of the time there was no reason to use the wrong model. The animation is the same for each type of gun. There's no reason to replace my Paladin with a Predator, the animation would have worked just fine anyway.

 

Using a placeholder when the character isn't equipped with the type of gun used is another issue. If they use the engine instead of pre-rendering it, then that wouldn't happen either.

[SolNebula]

My two cents on the top of what OP already said:

 

-If you plan on doing a trilogy then you should already prepare the ending of the entire thing as to have a coherent experience.

-Try to have a smaller but deeper squad. To avoid ME2 characters issues in ME3 all over again

-Keep MP separated from SP

-No eavesdropping quests like in ME3!!!

-Keep a good amount of funny moments as to avoid the depressing feeling ME3 had without Citadel

-Do not create Evil factions that are pure evil, more greyish characters please ALSO within your crew.

-Don't change a character in the middle of the trilogy....or between one game and the other....TIM in ME2 was cool....TIM in ME3 was more a madman

[Natureguy85]

-Don't change a character in the middle of the trilogy....or between one game and the other....TIM in ME2 was cool....TIM in ME3 was more a madman

 

I only disagree with this one. I think the shift in TIM was fine because he became Indoctrinated between games. My problem was that it was obvious from Mars.

[SolNebula]

I only disagree with this one. I think the shift in TIM was fine because he became Indoctrinated between games. My problem was that it was obvious from Mars.

 

Yeah of course his change made sense from a lore standpoint. Indoctrination is a useful card to play. I object though how sudden the change was, in ME2 he wanted the Reapers destroyed in ME3 he wants to control them...It was too sudden that felt like rewriting more than a carefully planned character development. I agree with you that his indoctrination was way too obvious. The line between a masterfully done character devlopement and a rewrite of his personality is very thin. One can object he was always like this but then this was not explained well IMO throughout the game. ME2 more like gave the idea he was a human supremacist with ruthless methods...rather than an indoctrinated tool.

 

Also since you mention.

 

-No more indoctrination!

[Golden_Persona]

Honestly, all the "basic" mistakes the past games made were due to console limitations. Not holstering your gun in 3? Cutscenes forcing you to use a weapon? Load times between ship areas? A lot of stuff mentioned in this topic aren't basic mistakes.

 

The Kai Leng Thessia fight wasn't a basic mistake seeing how it ruined so many people's experience with ME3. A lot of the examples mentioned about forced villain victories are downright lies, partially fueled by the "every dev does it better than Bioware" bandwagon thing that seems to go around a lot. Watching a playthrough of Witcher 2 I saw the player totally destroy Letho in the same way I wrecked Kai Leng, only to lose.

 

I can defeat Saren in less than 20 seconds, but he still wins the cutscene fight until ironically Shepard pulls out an asspull win of his own before Saren throws him off the buiding by having Saren be distracted by a loud noise. Something tells me a Spectre killing machine bent on wiping out Shepard wouldn't have let a noise distract him. But it happens, Shepard escapes death in a very forced hero victory by punching Saren in the face. It's ridiculous that Kai Leng takes the hate for that when Mass Effect has done it before then, and games have always done it.

 

Having fights where you curbstomp your enemy and then the cutscene forces you to lose isn't something unique to Bioware. It's a storytelling trope for video games where the writer wants to create a certain scenario, but the gameplay team obviously wants to include a boss fight during a climactic moment. A boss fight during that scene was appropriate because its a video game. If there was no fight and the gunship just shot the beams people would still be complaining that Bioware railroaded their hero into losing by not even having a chance to fight back. Hate the trope, not Bioware for using it to allow an appropriate boss fight. The only thing that needed changing was an actually well designed boss fight, not *two overloads, recharge, two more overloads, recharge, two more overloads cutscene.*

 

With that I think Bioware needs to embrace boss fights again. Being too gamey is not an excuse because I'm playing a game. Having forced hacking mini-games is too gamey, having a boss fight is a gameplay challenge. Not saying I wanted to fight a Reaperfied TIM, but I wanted to face down Harbinger. Harbinger doesn't feel like an important villain. Ruins ME2 a bit which is unfortunate since I love Harbinger in that game. Dat Reapers got personality.

[Torgette]

The thing is, most of the time there was no reason to use the wrong model. The animation is the same for each type of gun. There's no reason to replace my Paladin with a Predator, the animation would have worked just fine anyway.

 

Using a placeholder when the character isn't equipped with the type of gun used is another issue. If they use the engine instead of pre-rendering it, then that wouldn't happen either.

 

Being in-engine doesn't mean that much, you still have script the animation. The hard part is if they're doing anything other than a canned animation with the weapon.

[AlanC9]

Yeah of course his change made sense from a lore standpoint. Indoctrination is a useful card to play. I object though how sudden the change was, in ME2 he wanted the Reapers destroyed in ME3 he wants to control them...It was too sudden that felt like rewriting more than a carefully planned character development.

My impression was that TIM always wanted them stopped, and was indifferent as to the method.

[Golden_Persona]

Yeah of course his change made sense from a lore standpoint. Indoctrination is a useful card to play. I object though how sudden the change was, in ME2 he wanted the Reapers destroyed in ME3 he wants to control them...It was too sudden that felt like rewriting more than a carefully planned character development. I agree with you that his indoctrination was way too obvious. The line between a masterfully done character devlopement and a rewrite of his personality is very thin. One can object he was always like this but then this was not explained well IMO throughout the game. ME2 more like gave the idea he was a human supremacist with ruthless methods...rather than an indoctrinated tool.

 

Also since you mention.

 

-No more indoctrination!

ME2 is entirely based around Cerberus manipulating Shepard. You don't seriously believe TIM ever wanted to actually destroy the Reapers or Collectors did you? Him wanting to use Reaper tech sounds like something TIM would do even if he weren't indoctrinated. I see the Reapers indoctrinating him because they actually fear his capability. Seeing how much the guy smokes and drinks though, he was lost before even ME2 began. TIM's character development was actually handled very well. What I love is when he's getting the implants he chooses not to be sedated, instead choosing to feel pain (perhaps a final sign of his humanity before Reapers take it away completely).

 

I dunno, I loved the clashing of ideals with Cerberus in 3. Put this post in the absurd opinions topic I guess. Their rise to military force wasn't all that shocking. Everyone knows Shepard stopped the Collectors, people don't think TIM didn't get that message out to take away loyalty from the Alliance and to gain members for their indoctrination? Cerberus does what the Alliance don't

 

Makes you wonder why TIM didn't just hand Shepard a timed radiation pulse bomb instead of a nuke to begin with though. Perhaps an example of always giving players a choice doesn't always make the most sense?

[Drone223]

I think Death & Resurrection in science-fiction is a neat idea to explore, what bothered me more was what happens after you're resurrected - not many people bat an eye and it's moved on from. Shepard potentially being a reaper-tech cyborg or whatnot would've been an awesome twist, and even your closest companions should've been more wary of you being alive than being part of Cerberus.

The whole problem with Lazarus project was that its a terrible plot device and the explanation was just hand waved to "advance tech" it was just style over substance.

[Torgette]

The whole problem with Lazarus project was that its a terrible plot device and the explanation was just hand waved to "advance tech" it was just style over substance.

 

I think that's more an issue with how it was written than the idea itself, ie: technically you die when you beam up in star trek but nobody really cares or thinks about it, until something goes wrong and then it's horrific. Would've been funny if they had a scene in ME2 where Shepard gets their neck snapped by a Krogan, and then wakes up on a Cerberus station getting lectured not to do that again.

[BabyPuncher]

Don't lock doors behind us.

Pretty sure that would introduce serious issues involving how many assets are loaded.

[TheJediSaint]

That thing that happened in the last ten minutes of ME3?  Bioware should avoid doing that again.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

Pretty sure that would introduce serious issues involving how many assets are loaded.

Other games on lesser hardware have done it, but the sections were written with that idea in mind. It all depends on how BioWare chooses to implement it (hypothetically, since I doubt we'll see it in MEA).

[O'Voutie O'Rooney]

1) Limited armor style variation for the player and companions. (If possible have some armor that resembles aesthetically the designs from ME1)

2) Picking up heat sinks to "reload". The idea of picking up "ammo" littered all over the battlefield, that also happens to be universal to all weapons, seems cartoonish. It reminds me too much of stars popping out of bricks in Mario. Perhaps this was added to appeal to a different crowd after ME1.

[Valkyrja]

Pretty sure that would introduce serious issues involving how many assets are loaded.

 

They could do the Hinterlands or 64 player Conquest with this engine on these consoles but walking back into another corridor is unreasonable?

[BabyPuncher]

It certainly could be, if they decided to spend their still very limted resources in different places. Which I imagine they will.

 

It's really less about it being 'unreasonable' and more about having bigger priorities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pretty sure that would introduce serious issues involving how many assets are loaded.

Lock them one room farther back.

 

My objective here is that they not artificially constrain combat encounters the way ME2 did.  ME2 introduced thermal clips, and then trolled us my giving us more than we could carry at once and then promptly locking the door as soon as we left that room.  This artificial scarcity of resources was endlessly irritating (particularly for snipers, the only weapon type that couldn't carry enough clips at the same time), because we knew there was a whole room of clips right behind us, but the door always locked as soon as we went through.

[shepskisaac]

Most of ME2 gameplay mechanics to be honest (or more like lack of them). The gameplay was so banal, barebone and basic it was painful.

[Celtic Latino]

MMO style material quests/find an item and click a button quests (DAI/ME3)

HP tanks- at least give us a better strategy than 'whittle down health and hope he/she/it finally dies (BioWare games in general, DA2/DAI the most guilty)

Inconsistent Relationships- If I'm rude to Liara the entire ME1 there's no reason she should be my BFF in ME2, as an example (entire ME series)

Auto dialogue (ME3)

Positive interactions = Romantic interest (ME2)

Streamlining the RPG elements (ME2)

Lack of squad customization (ME2)

Ammo as powers (ME2/ME3)

Ultimately meaningless/retconned choices (Rachni/Anderson or Udina) (ME3)

[Valkyrja]

It certainly could be, if they decided to spend their still very limted resources in different places. Which I imagine they will.

 

It's really less about it being 'unreasonable' and more about having bigger priorities.

 

Hopefully they do invest in larger, more open areas that allow greater player freedom. ME2's corridors were suffocating. Thankfully things opened up a little in ME3.

[BabyPuncher]

Perhaps. They're going to run into a lot of problems trying to make wide open areas work for what is fundamentally a cover-based shooter. But perhaps they can come up with some interesting mechanics.

[Blackout62]

Guys, I've got a big one: let's go somewhere where the doors aren't all the same. I don't know what corporation has a monopoly on all the auto-opening door contracts in the galaxy but they are the true villains of Mass Effect.

[In Exile]

Lock them one room farther back.

 

My objective here is that they not artificially constrain combat encounters the way ME2 did.  ME2 introduced thermal clips, and then trolled us my giving us more than we could carry at once and then promptly locking the door as soon as we left that room.  This artificial scarcity of resources was endlessly irritating (particularly for snipers, the only weapon type that couldn't carry enough clips at the same time), because we knew there was a whole room of clips right behind us, but the door always locked as soon as we went through.

Bioware loves to create difficulty by locking doors, rather than letting us use sensible chokepoints to funnel enemies. 

[Natureguy85]

Yeah of course his change made sense from a lore standpoint. Indoctrination is a useful card to play. I object though how sudden the change was, in ME2 he wanted the Reapers destroyed in ME3 he wants to control them...It was too sudden that felt like rewriting more than a carefully planned character development. I agree with you that his indoctrination was way too obvious. The line between a masterfully done character devlopement and a rewrite of his personality is very thin. One can object he was always like this but then this was not explained well IMO throughout the game. ME2 more like gave the idea he was a human supremacist with ruthless methods...rather than an indoctrinated tool.

 

Also since you mention.

 

-No more indoctrination!

 

Control was never set up properly. What they should have done is kept Daro'Xen as a central figure in the Quarian/Geth conflict and done more with Xen's desire for the Quarians to Control the Geth. Success with this would have given us a reason to consider Control as an ending. Instead, we spent the whole game telling TIM that it not only wasn't possible, but was a bad idea even if it was, only to have it presented as a perfectly viable option in the end.

 

Honestly, all the "basic" mistakes the past games made were due to console limitations. Not holstering your gun in 3? Cutscenes forcing you to use a weapon? Load times between ship areas? A lot of stuff mentioned in this topic aren't basic mistakes.

 

The Kai Leng Thessia fight wasn't a basic mistake seeing how it ruined so many people's experience with ME3. A lot of the examples mentioned about forced villain victories are downright lies, partially fueled by the "every dev does it better than Bioware" bandwagon thing that seems to go around a lot. Watching a playthrough of Witcher 2 I saw the player totally destroy Letho in the same way I wrecked Kai Leng, only to lose.

 

I can defeat Saren in less than 20 seconds, but he still wins the cutscene fight until ironically Shepard pulls out an asspull win of his own before Saren throws him off the buiding by having Saren be distracted by a loud noise. Something tells me a Spectre killing machine bent on wiping out Shepard wouldn't have let a noise distract him. But it happens, Shepard escapes death in a very forced hero victory by punching Saren in the face. It's ridiculous that Kai Leng takes the hate for that when Mass Effect has done it before then, and games have always done it.

 

Having fights where you curbstomp your enemy and then the cutscene forces you to lose isn't something unique to Bioware. It's a storytelling trope for video games where the writer wants to create a certain scenario, but the gameplay team obviously wants to include a boss fight during a climactic moment. A boss fight during that scene was appropriate because its a video game. If there was no fight and the gunship just shot the beams people would still be complaining that Bioware railroaded their hero into losing by not even having a chance to fight back. Hate the trope, not Bioware for using it to allow an appropriate boss fight. The only thing that needed changing was an actually well designed boss fight, not *two overloads, recharge, two more overloads, recharge, two more overloads cutscene.*

 

With that I think Bioware needs to embrace boss fights again. Being too gamey is not an excuse because I'm playing a game. Having forced hacking mini-games is too gamey, having a boss fight is a gameplay challenge. Not saying I wanted to fight a Reaperfied TIM, but I wanted to face down Harbinger. Harbinger doesn't feel like an important villain. Ruins ME2 a bit which is unfortunate since I love Harbinger in that game. Dat Reapers got personality.

 

There are two major differences here. First, the fight on Virmire was your first confrontation with Saren. By Thessia, you've already had several confrontations with Kai Leng, including one that possibly had Shepard standing there like a moron while Thane fought Leng alone, only to be stabbed because he stupidly jump attacked a guy with a sword despite having a gun.

 

Second, you don't really "curbstomp" Saren. You shoot him, yes, but there's no indication he's affected by your attack. Kai Leng on the other hand has to call in the gunship and recuperate. He then still only wins because the building falls apart in just such a way so as to affect Shepard and not Leng.

 

ME2 is entirely based around Cerberus manipulating Shepard. You don't seriously believe TIM ever wanted to actually destroy the Reapers or Collectors did you? Him wanting to use Reaper tech sounds like something TIM would do even if he weren't indoctrinated. I see the Reapers indoctrinating him because they actually fear his capability. Seeing how much the guy smokes and drinks though, he was lost before even ME2 began. TIM's character development was actually handled very well. What I love is when he's getting the implants he chooses not to be sedated, instead choosing to feel pain (perhaps a final sign of his humanity before Reapers take it away completely).

 

I dunno, I loved the clashing of ideals with Cerberus in 3. Put this post in the absurd opinions topic I guess. Their rise to military force wasn't all that shocking. Everyone knows Shepard stopped the Collectors, people don't think TIM didn't get that message out to take away loyalty from the Alliance and to gain members for their indoctrination? Cerberus does what the Alliance don't

 

Makes you wonder why TIM didn't just hand Shepard a timed radiation pulse bomb instead of a nuke to begin with though. Perhaps an example of always giving players a choice doesn't always make the most sense?

 

I agree with you that TIM would want to capture intact technology from the beginning. That's why him wanting Control made sense once he was Indoctrinated because it wasn't a real stretch from how he was in Mass Effect 2. However, his development was not handled well because there was no slide. He was simply power hungry in ME2. He was clearly insane/Indoctrinated right from the start in ME3.  I didn't like the clear and obvious jump.

 

Likewise, there was no "clashing of ideals" because TIM never had a position that seemed reasonable. There was nothing in the game to make you stop and question if TIM might just be right. The game sorely needed this, not only to make TIM a compelling antagonist, but to make Control a reasonable ending choice.

 

I also disagree that the rise to military force isn't shocking. Funding is one thing, but it's the time and logistics that really make me question it.

 

Guys, I've got a big one: let's go somewhere where the doors aren't all the same. I don't know what corporation has a monopoly on all the auto-opening door contracts in the galaxy but they are the true villains of Mass Effect.

 

Actually this didn't bother me, for the same reason the reused interiors didn't in Mass Effect. I always chalked it up to prefabrication and modular construction.