136 réponses à ce sujet

[Teddie Sage]

I didn't recognize my Shepard by the end of the third game. Felt like I wasn't in control anymore. ( And the dreams... oh the dreams...  )

[fraggle]

I didn't recognize my Shepard by the end of the third game. Felt like I wasn't in control anymore. ( And the dreams... oh the dreams...  )

 

Yeah ok, I can see what you mean, and I know that some people didn't like it that these things were forced upon them.

For my Shepards I love it every time, it's fitting the general mood of the game.

But that can happen to any protagonist I think. You never have full control over any of them imo, it's still BWs character.

 

Granted, it surely would be neat if some scenes like for example the dreams could only trigger if you use certain dialogue options, or through some actions. Creating some kind of reaction to what you did or said, and if you regret something or not. Not sure if that would even be possible or if that would require too many resources, but yes, it would be a very nice touch

[Dr. Rush]

No more trilogies, no more data import. 

 

No excuses, no safety nets. Bioware has to make a great stand-alone game. No smoke-and-mirrors or promises of what will happen "in the next game."

 

Make a great game from start to finish, then we can start talking about sequels. 

[BraveVesperia]

I think this worked well in DA mostly because they can't travel far. So if you want to explore different areas of Thedas, you need to switch protags to make it more believable. The DA stories are also pretty self-contained. DAO was all about the Blight, once that's done you don't need to keep playing as a Warden to learn about the Breach. The Warden then being present for the start of the mage/templar war, growing the Inquisition and getting the Anchor mark would've been a little... unbelievable. Too much happening to one person. Unless ME's future stories follow the same pattern, there's no need to change protag.

 

I would very much love it if they made a stand-alone game sometime, where we pick a race/species to play (with the plot heavily changing depending on race). Even if they have a new trilogy with a 'new Shepard', it doesn't stop stuff like that happening at some point. It is their most successful franchise, right?

[themikefest]

I didn't recognize my Shepard by the end of the third game. Felt like I wasn't in control anymore.

At times I felt like I was playing femshep's stunt double in ME3
 

( And the dreams... oh the dreams...  )

I just headcanon my femshep at a Led Zeppelin concert 

[Mr_Commander_Shepard]

hell naw, i love the story development over the games!

[aoibhealfae]

so.... like they do with ToR? ........ NOOOOOOOO

[Blackguard]

so.... like they do with ToR? ........ NOOOOOOOO

 

If there would be a Mass Effect Online i would buy it ... *skillfully doges the stones*

But then again, i am ME-Disturbed.

And the DLCs on SWTOR was really boring... and the shop is horrible, even if you are willing to spend money there...

also the companions don't talk to you anymore once you hit maxlevel and are only dumb and mindless pets after that...

that would be like a lobotomized Tali... damn...

 

(The sick thing is, i would still buy it.)

 

(and i would buy a lifetime-subscription if it would be aviable)

[Teddie Sage]

I just headcanon my femshep at a Led Zeppelin concert 

That's actually awesomesauce.

[Torgette]

I didn't recognize my Shepard by the end of the third game. Felt like I wasn't in control anymore. ( And the dreams... oh the dreams...  )

 

It's pretty difficult to balance character development and still keep things blank. I think if you're going to have a trilogy of games and want to keep things as blank as possible then yeah you're going to have to move on to a new protagonist each game.

[Wulfram]

I'm not keen on Bioware's treatment of ex-PCs in DA. So I'd rather not have too many of them kicking around.

A new protagonist every game would be OK if each game was separated thoroughly. But if subsequent games are going to be trampling all over the former protagonists lives, then I'd rather stick with the same protagonist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Using the same player character across multiple games simply compounds the findamental problem of the save import.

With save imports, we're limited on the scope of impact we have on the world. That's bad.

But by reusing the same character, we're then limited on the scope of decisions we can make about him, and isn't that the whole point of a roleplaying game? Not being able to make that character whom we want him to be is a catastrophic consequence to be avoided at all costs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not keen on Bioware's treatment of ex-PCs in DA. So I'd rather not have too many of them kicking around.

A new protagonist every game would be OK if each game was separated thoroughly. But if subsequent games are going to be trampling all over the former protagonists lives, then I'd rather stick with the same protagonist.

That's an argument against save imports, I think.

[dreamgazer]

I didn't recognize my Shepard by the end of the third game. Felt like I wasn't in control anymore. ( And the dreams... oh the dreams...  )

That's a shame. ME3's iterations of Shepard, both paragon and renegade, felt a bit more like "my" Shepards than the moronic, bipolar, Cerberus-lenient goober they were forced to be in ME2. I could do with less auto-dialogue (Inquisition is a strong indication that they're listening to that criticism), but nothing beats the railroading throughout the second game.

[Redbelle]

Who thinks this would be for the best?

People kept complaining about Shepard being the protagonist of a trilogy so how about we get to play a new protagonist each new Mass Effect and import our choices like the programmers did for Dragon Age's franchise?

I think I would be okay with that. Also, the more the story spread through three different games, the more I felt it lost focus and couldn't been much shorter. So I suggest that each game is a new setting in the Mass Effect universe, with new stuff to do every time and connecting elements here and there that will remind us of our past actions. There.

That's my suggestion and probably the last thing I'll post as a thread before we get more news from the game by the end of 2015.

NONONONONONONONO

 

All the no's

 

Let's look at what was good about Mass Effect. Continuance. Taking a character from one game to another. Chipping away at the threat one game at a time that let's the character slow build towards the confrontation rather than just getting dropped in the heavy end where it's all Wham Bam thank you Maam heroics. Okay ME3 was a let down in that we fought the Reaper forces, but never got to take the battle to the Reaper's aside from a few sections.

 

As a D&D tabletop gamer I've often wanted to be able to take a character from one campaign to another. To have that history behind me and create new history via new experiences. ME1 and 2 allowed me to do this with ME2 throwing the curveball of stopping a transferable savegame state form being created by creating the ultimate fail state for your Shepard where everyone dies. It's not new character's that are needed to keep IP's fresh. It's ways player's can interact with the game and character growth..... Plotted character growth. (Seriously BW, plot this now. Game 1-3. Get a group of writer's and give them that ME1-3 protag contract and make sure they work with the narrative group to stop ME3 intro's happening).

 

Anyway, back to the OP. ME was awesome because it was a story about one guy. A constant. Dragon Age I fell out of love with and boycotted the second game till years after released because it wouldn't transfer my Warden.

 

If I'm going to be a hero through 3 games then I want to be the same hero playing through the same campaign. Shepard's campaign was the Reaper arc and though it ended as a damp squib the concept of playing the same guy who carries over his stats is simply brilliant because it takes a desire from table top rollplaying and brings it to games media. TTRPG's being brought to games media is filled with nugget's of goodness that are interpreted for games to be played by computer gamers. It's what brought BG and BG2 into the world. Game design specifically for computer games has grown up a lot since then but so have TTRPG's. And taking those desire's from gamer's who have 30+ years of want's from playing games is a good way to identify what gamer's will likely respond to.

 

Anyway, to put it bluntly. ME is better than DA because ME never put a usurper into my original heroes shoes. DA could arguably get away with it, because medieval style rollplay. But changing the setting's to space makes ME a space opera that changes things significantly. And one of those changes is, keep the original protagonist to address the 'threat' to maintain the cinematic atmosphere that ME has always set out to achieve.

[Golden_Persona]

I have a lot more faith in Bioware than a lot of people seem to. Just because the next series could possibly be a trilogy doesn't mean its going to end the exact same way the first trilogy did. Bioware is a company of humans, mistakes happen, and they've learned from a great many mistakes over the years. The problem is what they do really well will now always be overshadowed because of the ME3 ending. It's the same thing going on with the return of the mako. "ME1 Mako was awful" well I got news for you, this isn't the ME1 Mako. It's the ME:A Mako so you can't make proper judgement on it. Same principle with the trilogy idea. Just because the last one ended up very badly for some (although I'm absolutely sure the larger majority actually liked it, or at least didn't let it ruin the ME series for them) doesn't mean the new one will.

 

That stigma is going to unfairly follow the company because people can't learn to let it go. If you notice just how unstable the development team was for the trilogy (mainly your lead writer who was supposed to create the framework for the entire trilogy leaves not even halfway through, leaving the leftover team to have to clumsily fill in your plot threads) you'd realize Bioware did the best that they could.

 

Also, if I'm not mistaken wasn't the ME trilogy the first ever Bioware series to ever be promoted as a trilogy? That makes it their first attempt. We all make mistakes the first time we do something. Rather than just give up, why not take your mistakes and learn from them? DA certainly wasn't designed as a proper trilogy. I don't think any Bioware game before ME was designed as a trilogy. It was their first, they didn't know how to properly handle it, and now the lessons have been learned and they deserve a chance to make up for their mistake. That mistake, mind you, is like 10 minutes out of a 100+ hour saga. I'd actually argue the odds are in Bioware's favor for a successful new trilogy. What matters is if people will reasonable judge the next game(s) on their own merits or unfairly let the stigma of ME3 ruin every possible chance to enjoy the next game. Basically they go in fully expecting, wanting to absolutely hate it. Only time will tell.

[AlainSki]

You're implying they revert to the Dragon Age trilogy story structure?

 

I'd be EXTREMELY dissapointed if they do this. What made mass effect unique was the interconnection between the 3 parts were Sheppard served as the axis of the story. It created enormous emotional connection to the game. Dragon age's way of telling a story through 3 different eyes just didn't have that. I really hope they don't do this and just give us a protoganist.

[Redbelle]

Using the same player character across multiple games simply compounds the findamental problem of the save import.

With save imports, we're limited on the scope of impact we have on the world. That's bad.

But by reusing the same character, we're then limited on the scope of decisions we can make about him, and isn't that the whole point of a roleplaying game? Not being able to make that character whom we want him to be is a catastrophic consequence to be avoided at all costs.

 

I think your missing the point?

 

You can play the game twice over. Once as your hero who made choices that have consequences. And again as a blank slate as if you had never played the first.

 

Now, playing the first, but not the second, opens opportunities as well as closing other's. So even if you play the second game first, you still won't gain access to all the content because game state flags carried over form the first game won't exist to unlock contect in the second.

 

And that's the point.

 

Your not playing a game where you must unlock everything, Your playing a life. Your living the character in a way that results in paths opening and closing based on the choices you make and a lot of the time your not even aware it's happening. It's not about unlocking every encounter in the game, it's about taking advantage of the opportunities your playstyle unlocks as you roll play the character you choose your Shepard to be.

 

A renegade Shep will never see Paragon options and a Paragon Shep will never see Renegade options. To see all the options you have to play more than once. But then if you want to rollplay you have to play again, so three play throughs. If that doesn't interest you that's fine. But ME was built to reflect the mechanic of choice and consequence. Asking that everything be available is like saying all character's should be romancible. And that detracted from the DA romances when that decision was made too.

 

But it's okay. Because..... even though you may own a save import.... You don't have to load it. Bioware have catered to your need already. Just like the choice and consequence of loading my game states is catered for as well.

[shodiswe]

We will probably have the same character for two or Three games, probably Three since that seems to be a thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think your missing the point?

You can play the game twice over. Once as your hero who made choices that have consequences. And again as a blank slate as if you had never played the first.

Now, playing the first, but not the second, opens opportunities as well as closing other's. So even if you play the second game first, you still won't gain access to all the content because game state flags carried over form the first game won't exist to unlock contect in the second.

And that's the point.

Your not playing a game where you must unlock everything, Your playing a life. Your living the character in a way that results in paths opening and closing based on the choices you make and a lot of the time your not even aware it's happening. It's not about unlocking every encounter in the game, it's about taking advantage of the opportunities your playstyle unlocks as you roll play the character you choose your Shepard to be.

A renegade Shep will never see Paragon options and a Paragon Shep will never see Renegade options. To see all the options you have to play more than once. But then if you want to rollplay you have to play again, so three play throughs. If that doesn't interest you that's fine. But ME was built to reflect the mechanic of choice and consequence. Asking that everything be available is like saying all character's should be romancible. And that detracted from the DA romances when that decision was made too.

But it's okay. Because..... even though you may own a save import.... You don't have to load it. Bioware have catered to your need already. Just like the choice and consequence of loading my game states is catered for as well.

No, you're missing the point.

If the save import exists, then BioWare will have write the game to accommodate. We won't be allowed to make choices that would render subsequent games too difficult to design. Much like how you have to defeat Saren in ME1, so that ME2 could be designed around the assumption that Saren was defeated. You see this even more clearly with DLC, where suvsequent games assume that you finished the DLC, even if you never bought it. Unlike other side quests, DLC aren't canonically optional.

By reusing the player character, BioWare gives us a character who has to be compatible with all of the choices he might have made in past games. That's a narrower character.

[dreamgazer]

By reusing the player character, BioWare gives us a character who has to be compatible with all of the choices he might have made in past games. That's a narrower character.

I think that depends on the narrative itself, though. If the choices are more insular and smaller-scaled instead of impacting the galaxy, then there won't be a need to import data. We've got a lot of ground to cover in Andromeda, after all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think that depends on the narrative itself, though. If the choices are more insular and smaller-scaled instead of impacting the galaxy, then there won't be a need to import data.

And that solves some of thr save import problem, but still causes problems with reusing the player character, particularly if those small-scale decisions are of personal importance to the character.

[Redbelle]

So the problem is being on the rails and reaching a game state decision gate? Then continuing on the track that decision resulted in and reaching another decision gate?

 

I don't see this as a problem as decision gates are there by game design. As long as they are designed and have a train of design to follow back from you can expand the narrative along new points.

 

Or, adventure books. Turn to page..... to enter the door. Turn to page..... to pull the lever.

 

Now, Saren's death.... He died. He always dies and is dead. That's an on rail plot point that isn't a game state change. What is a game state is the way in which he was talked down. Either he shot himself or he didn't. Afterwards your back on the rails.

 

What I think your saying is that opportunity cost is in effect. The writer's didn't write a different narrative because they had to conform to the design of the game. Well, in DnD player's have to conform to a rule system. DnD however has undergone 5 different play systems so I agree that there is scope for change. But there has to be an underlying core assertion about what DnD is at heart. Which is basically, kill mobs. Get loot. Buy better gear. Kill more mobs.

 

So what is the core of ME that needs to be maintained if it's systems were going to be re-written so that it is still fundamentally ME?

[dreamgazer]

And that solves some of thr save import problem, but still causes problems with reusing the player character, particularly if those small-scale decisions are of personal importance to the character.

How so? If the narrative choices aren't pertinent to the conflict in Andromeda 2, and thus go without reference beyond maybe a stray line of dialogue or two (like most of the N7 missions from ME1 leading into the other two games), why would this create a problem?

[KotorEffect3]

I say it depends on their story and how ambitious bioware wants to be with each protagonist's story.  For Shepard three games was appropriate.  For this new protagonist.  Maybe their story will only call for one or two games.  It just depends.