136 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

Unless we decide the fate of entire species again, there is no problem with save importing.

 

And it was one of the major appeals of the series.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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?

Are the choices relevant to the character's personality?

[dreamgazer]

Are the choices relevant to the character's personality?

Choices in general are relevant to their personality, sure, when it comes to role-playing.

But must they be demonstrated for them to have a personal impact?

[quinwhisperer]

Totally against.

ME had a stronger story because and it made you feel more invested to continue it. Just because it ended in a unstaisfied matter is not a great reason to burn the house down. That's a sympton of another problem of a bad ending.

[jli84]

Hoping for a trilogy, but think they should consider a shorter time span between releases and just keep the engine as is throughout.

 

Edit: or they could keep the release cycle as it usually is and add more story content.

[Redbelle]

Aye. There's no guarantee Bioware will pump out another ME game after this. It could be a stand alone for all we know.

 

That said, like they said, I have my save game state waiting to be slotted in so I can keep playing my game state that is the ME universe.

[DarthSliver]

The OP is right on this needing to happen. The OP is also right about alot of things and just in his starting post. By the end of ME3 our choices didn't mean squat. The reason is because Bioware wanted our choices to matter so much that didn't canonize anything so one choice just lead to branches and than those choices on the branches lead to more branches on the first two branches and so forth and before we knew it Bioware had a big mess on their hands and its because they wanted our choices to matter so much it messed up their story.  My only proof of this is Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3, play it and you will see what I mean. 

 

Dragon Age has been successful like it is because they keep giving us a new hero. This allows them to give us more of a controlled environment and make our choices matter when its right for them to make it matter. Allows them to have more control over their product because they don't feel they are taking our choices away more shoving them off to the side until the time comes they can use them properly in another Dragon Age game.

 

But the problem is Bioware needs the balls of CD Projekt RED and make our choices matter by showing them affect the world. When we kill the council off in ME1, they just get replaced with clones pretty much making that choice not matter. Swore it said in ME1 the council became human controlled, we didn't see that show effect at all. Rachni Queen fate choice was subsided by ME3 with Reapers cloning a Rachni for breeding or whatever, that mission probably makes more since to be locked to players who saved the Queen in ME1. Most major choices we made in ME series get subside and replaced with clones so we never really reap the negativity of our choices.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Choices in general are relevant to their personality, sure, when it comes to role-playing.

But must they be demonstrated for them to have a personal impact?

Not at all.

My concern here is that by reusing the same character, the range of supported personalities gets narrower and narrower the more times you do it. This is why some players say that Shepard felt less and less like their character by the end.

[Massa FX]

I like trilogies.

 

ME1-ME3 was a good trilogy. IMO.

 

I just didn't agree with how it ended and wished for a better end to an EPIC playing experience. But that doesn't mean the issue was having a continuing storyline with the same main character. 

[KaiserShep]

Not at all.
My concern here is that by reusing the same character, the range of supported personalities gets narrower and narrower the more times you do it. This is why some players say that Shepard felt less and less like their character by the end.

In fairness, this isn't really an issue with reusing the same character. If the following game has a totally new protagonist, the same exact thing could happen.

[Pasquale1234]

My concern here is that by reusing the same character, the range of supported personalities gets narrower and narrower the more times you do it. This is why some players say that Shepard felt less and less like their character by the end.

I agree with the first statement.

As to the second, I think for me it was more a matter of the constant cutscene railroading, autodialogue, and forced emotions / reactions. But I knew Shepard was Bioware's character starting in ME1, so there's that.

[Valkyrja]

Dragon Age's approach feels like it has none of the strengths of a continuing protagonist or arc but still has all the baggage that comes with save importing, fan service, cameos, and returning characters so it doesn't have the advantages of stand-alone games either.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In fairness, this isn't really an issue with reusing the same character. If the following game has a totally new protagonist, the same exact thing could happen.

I don't follow. It can happen over the course of one game, but it's more likely to happen over several.

But there's a reset every time we get a new player character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But I knew Shepard was Bioware's character starting in ME1, so there's that.

I realized that fairly early in ME1, and as such I lost interest in the character almost immediately.

I never want to play BioWare's character.

[Rannik]

Nah, trilogies with the same protagonist and returning characters are vastly more interesting.

[Commandr_Shepard]

I like stories over many games. And why not if it's good and I want more of the same. Why stop at just Mass Effect 1. But I'm not sure BioWare can handle it. Unless they remove the choice system affecting the other games. Because they'll just write themselves into a corner again.

 

I say make it as a self contained story, and if the game is good and lives up to Mass Effect previous standards, then keep making other self contained sequels that continue the story until they hit a dud. Then start fresh.

 

 

So in short, I'll have to wait to see how ME:A turns out.

[Wulfram]

In fairness, this isn't really an issue with reusing the same character. If the following game has a totally new protagonist, the same exact thing could happen.

I think the point is that it's cumulative

Game A establishes that the protagonist dislikes Pepperoni on their pizza
Game B establishes that they dislike pineapple
etc

So by Game G the protagonist can only really have Margherita

[Redbelle]

I realized that fairly early in ME1, and as such I lost interest in the character almost immediately.

I never want to play BioWare's character.

Wait... What?

 

Then why are you playing Bioware's games?

[Redbelle]

I think the point is that it's cumulative

Game A establishes that the protagonist dislikes Pepperoni on their pizza
Game B establishes that they dislike pineapple
etc

So by Game G the protagonist can only really have Margherita

If you have invested in building a character that by the time game G comes around, it was your choices.... Your INTERACTIVE CHOICES..... where you as the player choose what you wanted that resulted in your character only liking Margherita. So where is the problem here?

 

I suspect the problem is that some player's are dis-invested at some point in the game. And again, there is a solution. Don't carry your saves forward. Play the vanilla game state. Suddenly more avenue's will open to you while at the same time others will close to you.

 

But recognize what your asking. It sounds as if you don't want a continuing, linked trilogy. Instead you want stand alone games where consequences don't occur to a new PC..... And that's just not Mass Effect.

 

If you want new heroes each time go play DA. It's there. That game you want, Bioware made it. Three of them. It's called Dragon Age. Mass Effect is not Dragon Age and calls for it to be more like Dragon Age..... Will result in it coming out and being panned by the critics citing that Bioware have run out of original ideas and are copying their last release.

 

Mass Effect has an identity of it's own. Taking that away to make it more like something else is a bad step in any independent IP. Better to refine and improve and tweak. Because let's face it... Mass Effect, despite all the negativity thrown at it in forums is still apparently good enough for people to suggest ways in which they'd like to play the next one.

[AlanC9]

Unless we decide the fate of entire species again, there is no problem with save importing.
 
And it was one of the major appeals of the series.

Well, there certainly are costs. ME3 had to burn a ton of zots to handle the SM.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wait... What?

Then why are you playing Bioware's games?

Because, outside of Shepard and Hawke, they give me blank slate protagonists I can define myself.

After I finished with ME2 (a game I thoroughly disliked throughout), I went back and played the NWN OC to cleanse my palate and remind me how RPGs are supposed to work.

[Steelcan]

Because, outside of Shepard and Hawke, they give me blank slate protagonists I can define myself.

After I finished with ME2 (a game I thoroughly disliked throughout), I went back and played the NWN OC to cleanse my palate and remind me how RPGs are supposed to work.

not all RPGs have to be tabletops in video game format

[SNascimento]

A connected trilogy is one of the defining aspects of Mass Effect. I hope they keep that. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

not all RPGs have to be tabletops in video game format

I would argue that they do. That's what makes them roleplaying games.

[Steelcan]

I would argue that they do. That's what makes them roleplaying games.

and you'd be wrong

 

a "role" is not always a blank slate open ended character