1395 réponses à ce sujet

[Galbrant]

I admit I have low expectations.  If I do get the game it will be when it  hits the bargain bin for 10 dollars. That way I know I'm not getting @#$% in the *&^.

[Zatche]

The main reason would be that I think it would lead to a better game. I would love to have some of the history of places and events we went through in the trilogy to enrich that environment. And for players that never played the trilogy wouldn't be missing out on anything as it wouldn't be required knowledge to play the new game but it would offer us that have a sense of attachment to the world without them really having to do anything. It would also let us the fans get to possibly see little additions to npc's futures and stories with subtle cameo's or mentions, again without having to do very much at all.

 

You can't build this kind of in depth background and attachment to a world from one single game. The fact that they could be building on top of it moving forward would add crazy amount of fan base connection. There will be some with Andromeda, but that is limited to some tech like guns and omni-tools and the N7 badge. 

 

Personally, even if we were to continue in the Milky Way, I wouldn't want cameos and mentions. I've gotten closure on all the characters and conflicts in the original trilogy. So, I'm looking forward to becoming attached to the new characters/companions and would like more time spent on them being fleshed out.

 

Then as i've been kind of harping all around at the moment lol, is Andromeda will not be free of the MW nor the Reapers. We have just escaped from them and we are assuming we have lost to the Reapers hence going into exodus, and it would break all immersion for me and probably many others if they just ignore the obvious, which is we are here because we are running from the big bad machines that are kicking our ass, and it would be absolute folly to assume we are safe, let alone just forget why we came to Andromeda. 

 

The only way to get a clean slate from the Reapers and the MW decisions is to have a completely different game. And if they want to keep it to Mass Effect then they need to give us a completely unrelated faction to play but would not really being using the IP's theme.

 

I don't follow.

 

Presumably, we are able to escape from the Reapers by travelling to Andromeda via [insert Space Magic explanation here]. The Reapers can't get to us, because [insert Space Magic explanation here]. We don't forget about the Reapers or why we came here. We just focus on the new conflict with the Remnant.

 

Clean (enough) slate for all practical purposes.

[Zatche]

Apologies for butting in.

You bring up a point that's been bugging me since the game came out actually. Why does a choice in a video game have value to begin with?
Personally, I think it's when it has consequences that surprise you long after you've made it. Choosing to rewrite the Heretic Geth is a good example of this for me. The Paragon choice of leaving them alive actually has unexpectedly negative consequences in ME3 because it makes reconciling the Quarians and the Geth more difficult. Even though I had made the 'wrong' choice here, I actually enjoyed being thrown a bit of a curve ball.

The ending choice, by contrast, is far less interesting for me. It's supposedly galaxy altering effects are limited to the last 10 minutes of the game, and a slideshow at that. There's also no surprises there; you pick the choice that kills the Reapers? The Reapers promptly fall down dead. You want to combine organic and synthetic life? Everybody obligingly gets green circuit board tattoos. All the options do exactly what they say on the tin. No surprises, pleasant or unpleasant... I just find it oddly superficial and throw-away, really.

I think this gets to the heart of my (and perhaps others' ) frustration with the move to Andromeda. If the RGB choices have no interesting or surprising consequences that we get to live with in the next game, then what was the point of making them? I just think it's a shame we'll never get to visit the Citadel, Rannoch or Omega again, largely because of one, really rather lacklustre, 'choice'.

 

While I do enjoy when Role Playing games have reactivity to player choices, but I think the real value of choice comes simply in the ability to make them. Provided the choice is a interesting one, they provide thought exercises. What would I do? What is the moral right choice? If role-playing a different kind of character than yourself, what would they do?

 

I often like seeing the consequences of my actions, but the game allowing me to speculate on them is often enough. And that would be true for the ending choices of ME3, but the choices were so absurd, over the top, and abstract, that I don't care to either see it or speculate. So I kinda agree with you there.

[marcelo caldas]

And unfortunately, they chose the worst of those three options.

Agreed, although I think BW will return to MW in a few years (5 to 10 I think) and retcon the whole mass, more so if this Andromeda s.h.i.t doesn't go well.
Maybe the best choice is trying to make a great game in between to regain credit and appear not to step down from the artistic vision that ruined MW.

[Sartoz]

While I do enjoy when Role Playing games have reactivity to player choices, but I think the real value of choice comes simply in the ability to make them. Provided the choice is a interesting one, they provide thought exercises. What would I do? What is the moral right choice? If role-playing a different kind of character than yourself, what would they do?

 

I often like seeing the consequences of my actions, but the game allowing me to speculate on them is often enough. And that would be true for the ending choices of ME3, but the choices were so absurd, over the top, and abstract, that I don't care to either see it or speculate. So I kinda agree with you there.

 

                                                                             <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

If you are suggesting that the illusion of a choice is good enough, then I must disagree. Choice, by its very definition implies, at the very least, a binary outcome.

 

Many here and in the DA forums have stated that they don't like this illusionry choice facade.  To me, if the game gives me choices and I made a crucial mistake, it must bite me in the butt later on.... as long as I understand where I made the mistake. It can be as simple as my "advisor" telling me "we should have sent the AI agent to sector 14..". Otherwise, I can just plod along the main story arc unworrried about what I do.

[Cheviot]

Why are people so keen to dismiss MEA so early on? It it because of DAI(a completely different kind of game), or are they still sore over an ending to a game that came out 3 years ago. It just doesn't make sense. People should just grow up, let go of past slights & give this brand new game in a much beloved franchise a break.

The fact they're still on the internet bitching about the series shows that a large proportion of them are ready to purchase MEA.  This has happened before: all through the pre-release promotion of GTA V, forums were full of complaints about how people weren't going to buy it, every preview revealed something that people complained meant that it wasn't GTA anymore, and people complained that the apparent failure of GTA IV meant they weren't going to buy it, or were going to buy it cheap.  GTA V is currently one of the best-selling games ever.  While I'm not saying that just because everyone hates on a game means it's going to break records, I am saying that it doesn't actually have any impact on how a game does.

[Zatche]

If you are suggesting that the illusion of a choice is good enough, then I must disagree. Choice, by its very definition implies, at the very least, a binary outcome.

For most of the choices in Bioware games, the only difference in outcome is the choice itself. Im talking about Cosmetic character customization options, choosing different dialogue options. These choices don't have value from a "game" perspective. But, I think they are important in that they allow the players to express themselves.

Divergent outcomes certainly offer more value. I would definitely prefer decisions to matter, bite me in the ass every so often, but I don't expect it for all decisions, and I still think that value exists when they don't.

[Sidney]

<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
 
If you are suggesting that the illusion of a choice is good enough, then I must disagree. Choice, by its very definition implies, at the very least, a binary outcome.
 
Many here and in the DA forums have stated that they don't like this illusionry choice facade.  To me, if the game gives me choices and I made a crucial mistake, it must bite me in the butt later on.... as long as I understand where I made the mistake. It can be as simple as my "advisor" telling me "we should have sent the AI agent to sector 14..". Otherwise, I can just plod along the main story arc unworrried about what I do.

It isn't about the illusion but that the choice doesn't have to mean what you think it means nor does it have to be world changing. For example even if the whining simpering about the ending types are right (and they are not) and the whole MW is blown up by the Catalyst blast it doesn't invalid your choices just because everyone is dead. Your choices were what mattered for your characters development. There was a mission to save the colony or save the airport (something like that) from a missile. The outcome doesn't really matter but my choices does matter to my character. In DAO if you choose Bhelen and he gets overthrown and that, again, doesn't invalidate that you made a choice.

[In Exile]

It isn't about the illusion but that the choice doesn't have to mean what you think it means nor does it have to be world changing. For example even if the whining simpering about the ending types are right (and they are not) and the whole MW is blown up by the Catalyst blast it doesn't invalid your choices just because everyone is dead. Your choices were what mattered for your characters development. There was a mission to save the colony or save the airport (something like that) from a missile. The outcome doesn't really matter but my choices does matter to my character. In DAO if you choose Bhelen and he gets overthrown and that, again, doesn't invalidate that you made a choice.

 

People want heavily divergent choices that follow their moral compass about the event. That's it. Even if the choice were heavily divergent and reactive, people would still complain if it isn't divergent in how the want.

 

It's a total losing proposition for any developer. 

[pdusen]

People want heavily divergent choices that follow their moral compass about the event. That's it. Even if the choice were heavily divergent and reactive, people would still complain if it isn't divergent in how the want.

 

It's a total losing proposition for any developer. 

 

Only if the whole sum of experiences you care about are people who go to forums to complain. All other evidence indicates that people are generally okay with not all choices being highly divergent.

[Sartoz]

It isn't about the illusion but that the choice doesn't have to mean what you think it means nor does it have to be world changing. For example even if the whining simpering about the ending types are right (and they are not) and the whole MW is blown up by the Catalyst blast it doesn't invalid your choices just because everyone is dead. Your choices were what mattered for your characters development. There was a mission to save the colony or save the airport (something like that) from a missile. The outcome doesn't really matter but my choices does matter to my character. In DAO if you choose Bhelen and he gets overthrown and that, again, doesn't invalidate that you made a choice.

 

                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Interesting.

We diverge on the outcome of a choice. You simply want the game to present you with a choice between cutting the black wire or the blue one and continue on. This type of game choice is an illusionary one.. a plot gimmick because it has no meaningfull consequences after the choice is made.

 

My objective in presenting the player with a choice, say cutting a black or blue wire from a bomb, is to include a negative result if the wrong wire is cut. By cutting the wrong wire the bomb will explode, callapsing a key bridge which prevents me from reaching and controlling a major objective in a battle.   To me this is the definition of a choice. Granted it can be as simple as a conversational choice where the wrong one will earn you a slap on your face.

 

The point here, is my definition has consequences, whereas yours has none (if I understand you properly).

[Nethershadow]

Personally, even if we were to continue in the Milky Way, I wouldn't want cameos and mentions. I've gotten closure on all the characters and conflicts in the original trilogy. So, I'm looking forward to becoming attached to the new characters/companions and would like more time spent on them being fleshed out.

 

 

I don't follow.

 

Presumably, we are able to escape from the Reapers by travelling to Andromeda via [insert Space Magic explanation here]. The Reapers can't get to us, because [insert Space Magic explanation here]. We don't forget about the Reapers or why we came here. We just focus on the new conflict with the Remnant.

 

Clean (enough) slate for all practical purposes.

You are suggesting it would take a lot of resources away from the new characters and their backgrounds which is a gross exaggeration. Take ME3, the cameo's for Miranda, Jack, Jacob ext are all pretty minor and they could have just as easily used a different looking avatar and name for them in mist cases. The avatars are actually already made so less work needed there. The amount of work to add this would be pretty minor and would not need any additional time as they have to be made regardless to tell the story, and in some cases to entice people to buy dlc which is a plus. So if it was a cameo, a datapad talking about someone previous fans would recognize takes nothing away from what your looking for and you are at the ability to just ignore it if you don't want to see or hear about it.

 

What you say for a clean slate takes into account a lot of assumptions that are logically very unlikely based on what we know so far; that the humans somehow know for fact that they have escaped completely and no concern about being followed, especially when they haven't even come close to travelling across vast distances as their enemy has, the humans are technologically far behind them (including they never gain access to the tech at the end of the trilogy either), the great enemy was living outside of the galaxy which should give the humans great concern about their plausible ability to reach another galaxy, let alone thinking the humans get a one way ticket to another galaxy that can't be followed no matter what. Based on this, your assumptions are very very unlikely. When they get to Andromeda, I seriously can't see them going "whew, we escaped, no more worries, lets forget the Reapers ever existed and will never be a threat to us again." or "good thing we escaped, we will never need or want to know how it really turned out, because you know, we don't have any loyalties to those MW humans, or even care what happened to them, nor do we have any big bad galactic enemies at our back."

 

I know lots of people just want a clean slate and I get that, but I can't plausibly see that existing without removing all aspects of the IP and just creating a new faction in Andromeda with zero connection to the MW conflict. The only other option I can think of to keep the N7 Marines / Earth gov as the main character / faction is to literally move the timeline ahead hundreds or thousands of years where the whole MW incident would be forgotten about.

[Sidney]

<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
 
Interesting.
We diverge on the outcome of a choice. You simply want the game to present you with a choice between cutting the black wire or the blue one and continue on. This type of game choice is an illusionary one.. a plot gimmick because it has no meaningfull consequences after the choice is made.
 
My objective in presenting the player with a choice, say cutting a black or blue wire from a bomb, is to include a negative result if the wrong wire is cut. By cutting the wrong wire the bomb will explode, callapsing a key bridge which prevents me from reaching and controlling a major objective in a battle.   To me this is the definition of a choice. Granted it can be as simple as a conversational choice where the wrong one will earn you a slap on your face.
 
The point here, is my definition has consequences, whereas yours has none (if I understand you properly).

Well you take a statement to a massive extreme. Choices can have consequences but equally a choice might not have a consequence.
To use a very simple example if I could pick what Shep has to drink. A beer versus a soda versus a martini might say something about his character but have zero consequences anywhere.

I'm not saying choices are gimmicks but just that making them doesn't always lead to what you want or think. Go back to KOTOR2 and you give a beggar some cash...and he promptly gets mugged and beat up for that money. The choice said something about your character the fact that it didn't work the way you expected doesn't matter.

Typically choices don't matter. There is no right or wrong answer of the genophage or Quarians/Geth solution in game. You can not cure the genophage and help the Geth and lose. Saving the council or not in the first game sounds really super important but has staggeringly little to do with what comes after it -- but that choice matters for who Shep is for you. Most of these choices are illusions and I recognize that.

[Zatche]

You are suggesting it would take a lot of resources away from the new characters and their backgrounds which is a gross exaggeration. Take ME3, the cameo's for Miranda, Jack, Jacob ext are all pretty minor and they could have just as easily used a different looking avatar and name for them in mist cases. The avatars are actually already made so less work needed there. The amount of work to add this would be pretty minor and would not need any additional time as they have to be made regardless to tell the story, and in some cases to entice people to buy dlc which is a plus. So if it was a cameo, a datapad talking about someone previous fans would recognize takes nothing away from what your looking for and you are at the ability to just ignore it if you don't want to see or hear about it.

What you say for a clean slate takes into account a lot of assumptions that are logically very unlikely based on what we know so far; that the humans somehow know for fact that they have escaped completely and no concern about being followed, especially when they haven't even come close to travelling across vast distances as their enemy has, the humans are technologically far behind them (including they never gain access to the tech at the end of the trilogy either), the great enemy was living outside of the galaxy which should give the humans great concern about their plausible ability to reach another galaxy, let alone thinking the humans get a one way ticket to another galaxy that can't be followed no matter what. Based on this, your assumptions are very very unlikely. When they get to Andromeda, I seriously can't see them going "whew, we escaped, no more worries, lets forget the Reapers ever existed and will never be a threat to us again." or "good thing we escaped, we will never need or want to know how it really turned out, because you know, we don't have any loyalties to those MW humans, or even care what happened to them, nor do we have any big bad galactic enemies at our back."

I know lots of people just want a clean slate and I get that, but I can't plausibly see that existing without removing all aspects of the IP and just creating a new faction in Andromeda with zero connection to the MW conflict. The only other option I can think of to keep the N7 Marines / Earth gov as the main character / faction is to literally move the timeline ahead hundreds or thousands of years where the whole MW incident would be forgotten about.

Oh. Development resources wasn't my main point. I guess that was unclear. (Edit: Re-reads post. Definitely unclear.)

My main point was that I just don't find cameos and mentions particularly enticing, especially since I have closure on all my favorite characters/companions. Thus, I don't feel that Bioware is abandoning something crucial by going to Andromeda. I've been trying to understand why people have been saying that Bioware "needs" to stay in the Milky Way. You're the first person I've seen to actually provide a reason that makes sense by bringing up cameos and mentions. I understand it. It's just not something I particularly care about.

And the reason why I used [insert Space Magic explanation here] was because I'm not expecting plausibility. I'm not expecting the writers to take a plot where one would think it would naturally go. I am expecting that the writers came up with the destination first, and then contrive some nonsense to get there, as would be the par for Mass Effect.

[JoltDealer]

1) Speculation.  We have no idea how we get to Andromeda.  A precursor race's litter is just one possible way we could figure out how.  Since it would take over 200 years for even a Reaper to reach Andromeda.

 

2) Both the Catalyst and the Leviathan confirm that the intelligence's purpose is to preserve life "at all cost".  Power supply is a valid point.  But it still goes towards and precursor race that visits the Milky Way from somewhere else would have this more advanced power source.  Also, the Reapers wouldn't have to go to each galaxy.  SOme could set up shop in Andromeda and start a cycle of harvesting there with purely Andromeda-built Reapers.  Just saying 

 

3) That's...a good point.  But that would mean this precursor race never used, or likely even investigated, the relays.  Which would be rather strange.

 

1. To be fair, they may not be more advanced than the Reapers.  They may just be more advanced than other Andromedan species.  It may just be a totally foreign type of technology to us -- a technological equivalent of a phrase that exists in another language, but not our own.  As for how we ended up there, I think it just has to do with us finally mastering the tech behind Mass Relays.  After all, the character in the MEA trailer is shown going through something akin to lightspeed or hyperspace on the way to the desert planet.
    
2. Their job was to preserve life, but I think they were limited to only the life that they knew of.  Even if the Reapers had gone to Andromeda, they had no way of knowing where to find them.  Considering that the Andromeda Galaxy is much larger than the Milky Way Galaxy.  I believe its diameter is 220 kilolightyears, which I didn't even know existed until today.  To put it more simply, I think the Reapers didn't have the numbers to investigate it in a fast enough manner.  Although, who knows?  Maybe we'll find a lone reaper in the Andromeda Galaxy somewhere.
    
3. Were there even mass relays to use in the Andromeda?  I don't think that any of the Reaper/Leviathan tech went beyond our Milky Way galaxy.

[Natureguy85]

The fact they're still on the internet bitching about the series shows that a large proportion of them are ready to purchase MEA.  This has happened before: all through the pre-release promotion of GTA V, forums were full of complaints about how people weren't going to buy it, every preview revealed something that people complained meant that it wasn't GTA anymore, and people complained that the apparent failure of GTA IV meant they weren't going to buy it, or were going to buy it cheap.  GTA V is currently one of the best-selling games ever.  While I'm not saying that just because everyone hates on a game means it's going to break records, I am saying that it doesn't actually have any impact on how a game does.

 

Actually, I watched an interesting Game Theory episode recently suggesting that the negative outcry boots sales, though it was more about moral watchdogs than quality concerns.

 

[Natureguy85]

I like this discussion on choice, but I don't think they have to be one or the other. MrBtongue had a good video on different kinds.

 

 

 

I am a big fan of choices having consequences, even ones far down the line like Tali and Legion being required for peace between Geth and Quarians. However, I still enjoyed Dragon Age Origins, where the choices mattered little to the plot, but I was given excellent epilogues. Those made me feel like those choices affected the world and it's people, even if they didn't affect the plot. The lack of epilogues and eventually the weak ones in the Extended Cut, were major problems for me with the ME3 endings. And I also like choice that offer divergent paths, like choosing Roche or Yorveth in The Witcher 2.

 

As for changes invalidating choices or not, I think it depends on how it's done. I didn't mind that the Witcher has you choose between two women and sticks you with one of them for the sequel. The game actually acknowledged the choice and simply wrote one character out of existence. Hey, it's easier to write a good story if you don't have to account for multiple previous outcomes, and they acknowledged the choice rather than just dropping it. Udina being the Councilor in ME3 was more annoying to me because both characters were still around.

 

A real choice invalidation though is something like how Cerberus gets Human Reaper bits if you destroyed the base. Those are bad.

[In Exile]

I am a big fan of choices having consequences, even ones far down the line like Tali and Legion being required for peace between Geth and Quarians. However, I still enjoyed Dragon Age Origins, where the choices mattered little to the plot, but I was given excellent epilogues. Those made me feel like those choices affected the world and it's people, even if they didn't affect the plot. The lack of epilogues and eventually the weak ones in the Extended Cut, were major problems for me with the ME3 endings. And I also like choice that offer divergent paths, like choosing Roche or Yorveth in The Witcher 2.

 

 

Do you mind on elaborating why epilogues help you? I've never found them satisfying - to me they're always a way to avoid showing me the consequences of my choices and letting me experience them, so they feel ultimately empty.

[Vilegrim]

Why are people so keen to dismiss MEA so early on? It it because of DAI(a completely different kind of game), or are they still sore over an ending to a game that came out 3 years ago. It just doesn't make sense. People should just grow up, let go of past slights & give this brand new game in a much beloved franchise a break.

 

because BW hasn't made a great game since ME2 (and that is arguable)

[Natureguy85]

Do you mind on elaborating why epilogues help you? I've never found them satisfying - to me they're always a way to avoid showing me the consequences of my choices and letting me experience them, so they feel ultimately empty.

 

Well some will be personal preference, so my explanation probably won't suddenly make them satisfying for you, but I'll try. I'll also point out that liking the epilogues doesn't mean I wouldn't have preferred the choices to have had more concrete plot effects.

 

Mostly, it's the level of detail. The epilogues in Origins told me about many people I'd encountered and how my decisions affected them. I understand the difficulty of having that many choices have an effect on the game, but the epilogues made me feel like my actions had an effect on the world and future. It let me know what my team mates did after the ordeal. Mass Effect 3 didn't give me that. In fact, it oddly showed scenes of the ME2 team but not the ME3 team.

 

The other main difference is that Origins was a self contained story, where Mass Effect is a three game series.

[Spectr61]

<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
 
If you are suggesting that the illusion of a choice is good enough, then I must disagree. Choice, by its very definition implies, at the very least, a binary outcome.
 
Many here and in the DA forums have stated that they don't like this illusionry choice facade.  To me, if the game gives me choices and I made a crucial mistake, it must bite me in the butt later on.... as long as I understand where I made the mistake. It can be as simple as my "advisor" telling me "we should have sent the AI agent to sector 14..". Otherwise, I can just plod along the main story arc unworrried about what I do.

Choice is not binary by definition.

Webster's; the act of picking between two or more options.

If it's choices, clearly not binary, as there are more than two options, I.e. more than a 1 or a 0.

If it's act of choosing itself, it seemingly could be binary in that you either choose (1), or not (0).

However, this reasoning also fails in that choosing not to chose (0), is a choice itself (1).

So, a choice isn't binary at all, just merely a decision (1).

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

It's a really, really long bus.

[Sartoz]

                                                                           <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

And here I thought this thread withered and died....

[Chealec]

                                                                           <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

And here I thought this thread withered and died....

 

I'll throw it under a bus if they attempt to put a language/nudity filter in it... there you go, should be good for at least another 50+ pages now.

[Mercyva]

i think it dont matter if they dismiss the game or not. trust me they'll buy it. and maybe complain some more... i understand why you feel the way you do, its hard when you are hyped to a game, and then see negative things about it with nothing to back it up with.. personally, i try to be where the positive feedback are. whether on this forum or elsewhere! i think bioware will make sure that ME3 last 10 minutes will not happen again. sad to see that happen to my fav franchise ever, but i try to be positive! because people who work at bioware are humans too, when they see positive it'll motivate them to do even better, i dont get being negative accomplishing anything.