153 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

As nice as that sounds, it does seem like something hard to implement. If say, for example, Shepard's ability to pass N7 training was left to player choice and the player fails, that completely destroys the game. No N7 training, no Torfan, no Spectre, no stopping the Reapers. That's asking for a completely different game than what the original was. But if you mean that you should be allowed to fail and the game then includes a write-around so it keeps going, that's even more unfair and a case of "special snowflake". We already do complain that our choices are meaningless or aren't really choices at all after all.

 

First of all, this -is- a completely different game than the original.

 

Secondly, if you fail it's game over. That's not a difficult concept, it's how games work.

 

Thirdly, it worked for Hawke, who was no one special at first.

[Killdren88]

I'd say about as normal as the next guy/gal. They are just the who happen to get the plot dumped on them and they get to deal with it.

[LoRD KYRaN]

First of all, this -is- a completely different game than the original.

 

Secondly, if you fail it's game over. That's not a difficult concept, it's how games work.

 

Thirdly, it worked for Hawke, who was no one special at first.

 

I know this is a different game. What I mean is that the entire Mass Effect 1-3 would be completely different if the choice of whether or not a player passes the N7 training is left to the player. Simply because if the player fails N7, the PC would not be in Eden Prime auditioning to be a Spectre and hence, those 3 games wouldn't fly. If failing just leads to a game over, then the argument where you said that

 

Even a normal soldier can become special, they just have to be in the right place at the right time. And succeed. Leaving those parts up to the player is a much better solution than giving you a famous war hero right from the start.

 

 

really doesn't stand. Cos it's not up to the player when the player failing leads to a game over. You will be forced to succeed to progress the game, likely leading to you having that war hero anyway. You're contradicting yourself mate.

 

And neither was Shepard. She wasn't magical or any such thing. She was a damn good soldier doing her job. Her being on Eden Prime and getting the visions after saving Kaidan are all a result of her actions and capabilities as opposed to anything "special". Her defeating the Reapers was down to her iron-will and determination. Nothing special bout that. Hence, why I'm really curious as to how ya'll value "specialness". The more I read here, the more it seems like any character that excels beyond her peers would be viewed as overly special.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I know this is a different game. What I mean is that the entire Mass Effect 1-3 would be completely different if the choice of whether or not a player passes the N7 training is left to the player. Simply because if the player fails N7, the PC would not be in Eden Prime auditioning to be a Spectre and hence, those 3 games wouldn't fly. If failing just leads to a game over, then the argument where you said that

 

 

really doesn't stand. Cos it's not up to the player when the player failing leads to a game over. You will be forced to succeed to progress the game, likely leading to you having that war hero anyway. You're contradicting yourself mate.

 

And neither was Shepard. She wasn't magical or any such thing. She was a damn good soldier doing her job. Her being on Eden Prime and getting the visions after saving Kaidan are all a result of her actions and capabilities as opposed to anything "special". Her defeating the Reapers was down to her iron-will and determination. Nothing special bout that. Hence, why I'm really curious as to how ya'll value "specialness". The more I read here, the more it seems like any character that excels beyond her peers would be viewed as overly special.

 

Eh, please take a look at the top of the site. Do you see the Mass Effect: Andromeda? Yeah? That's what we're talking about.

 

All your ME 1-3 examples don't count because they are offtopic. No one is saying that what we want for ME:A should have worked in the previous games.

[Inquisitor_Jonah]

They could make that the PC this time isn't even a commander at all. Just someone that's a part of a team. The "special snowflake" could be someone from your team and make you aspire to be better than him, so wen the player finally achieve greatness it would be so much more satisfying. An old game that did this is Megaman X. Zero was the ranked up big hero in the scene. X had the potential to be, and kinda of had a "special guy" thing going on in his backstory, but in the beginning of the game, he was just a B class hunter, exactly the same as a dozen of other maverick hunters in the guild. But the major point of the game was making the player grow with the character, so he could be stronger than the hero (Zero, who was in the SS hunter class) and make a difference. This would be an interesting dynamic to see, and definitely would make my PC more special to me than another goddamn Messiah.

[The Heretic of Time]

I'm really curious as to how everyone views "specialness". Even if you start at bootcamp, there will be a moment that sets you apart from the rest. Some scenario in which you excel over your teammates. If it doesn't happen at bootcamp, it'll happen during a mission. Has to happen sometime to justify the protagonist being the protagonist. Would that be viewed as making you a special snowflake? Cos if that's the case, then the only way for the PC to not be a special snowflake is to be mediocre throughout the game. Basically playing as Robin to the games Batman. Which is really bad business cos I honestly doubt anyone wants to play second fiddle in a game.

 

 

 

As nice as that sounds, it does seem like something hard to implement. If say, for example, Shepard's ability to pass N7 training was left to player choice and the player fails, that completely destroys the game. No N7 training, no Torfan, no Spectre, no stopping the Reapers. That's asking for a completely different game than what the original was. But if you mean that you should be allowed to fail and the game then includes a write-around so it keeps going, that's even more unfair and a case of "special snowflake". We already do complain that our choices are meaningless or aren't really choices at all after all.

 

My view on it is that I'm fine with any sort of specialness as long as the protagonist's specialness is achieved through hard work and dedication, not through mere luck, fate or destiny. No "chosen one", no "beacon visions", no "Herald of Andraste" or any of that crap.

[Jorji Costava]

I'd prefer for the protagonist to not be very special at all (has whatever training is necessary in order to possess the skills you use in gameplay, but nothing exceptional beyond that). And in fact, I think it would be better if this relative lack of specialness continued throughout the game. More specifically, BW needs to cool it with the universe-shaping decisions, because (1) it's a pain in the butt to make sequels if the writers don't know what species have been exterminated or what planets have been wiped out from game to game, and (2) it's just unconvincing on its own terms: The idea of one highly trained or even 'special' soldier  deciding the fate of every global conflict on Earth strikes us all as ridiculous, and it's not much different in the context of the game as far as I'm concerned.

[Arppis]

I hope not too special.

[The Heretic of Time]

I'd prefer for the protagonist to not be very special at all (has whatever training is necessary in order to possess the skills you use in gameplay, but nothing exceptional beyond that). And in fact, I think it would be better if this relative lack of specialness continued throughout the game. More specifically, BW needs to cool it with the universe-shaping decisions, because (1) it's a pain in the butt to make sequels if the writers don't know what species have been exterminated or what planets have been wiped out from game to game, and (2) it's just unconvincing on its own terms: The idea of one highly trained or even 'special' soldier  deciding the fate of every global conflict on Earth strikes us all as ridiculous, and it's not much different in the context of the game as far as I'm concerned.

 

Quoted for truth. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[LoRD KYRaN]

Eh, please take a look at the top of the site. Do you see the Mass Effect: Andromeda? Yeah? That's what we're talking about.

 

All your ME 1-3 examples don't count because they are offtopic. No one is saying that what we want for ME:A should have worked in the previous games.

 

It's an example dude! I obviously can't give you a scenario in Andromeda in which the principle I'm putting forward will apply since I know jack **** bout Andromeda. So I'm using Shepard as an example! I'm sorry if it's not clear but I don't know how else to get what I'm trying to explain across. Simple put, leaving too much up to players is impossible as it would not be possible to integrate all the branches into a single cohesive story. Which is kinda why they give you the war hero to start with that meets all the requirements for the story to make sense. They can't give you a trainee and hope you make him into a war hero cos if you don't, the story no longer fits. And no, you can't argue giving players choice and then use "game over" as a way to ensure the "right" choices" are made.

 

I'd prefer for the protagonist to not be very special at all (has whatever training is necessary in order to possess the skills you use in gameplay, but nothing exceptional beyond that). And in fact, I think it would be better if this relative lack of specialness continued throughout the game. More specifically, BW needs to cool it with the universe-shaping decisions, because (1) it's a pain in the butt to make sequels if the writers don't know what species have been exterminated or what planets have been wiped out from game to game, and (2) it's just unconvincing on its own terms: The idea of one highly trained or even 'special' soldier  deciding the fate of every global conflict on Earth strikes us all as ridiculous, and it's not much different in the context of the game as far as I'm concerned.

 

Agreed. I like achieving greatness through action rather than having it handed to you. Makes me feel like it's earned.

 

Though I did think the Rachni bit was quite well done. I just wonder if they scale back on the big decisions, how that would affect the weightage of the game. One of the charms of BW games for me is that it forces you to antogonise over decisions like the rachni and genophage cos you know it's a game-changer. It might not be all that logical but isn't that the beauty of fiction to a large extent?

[Gileadan]

I would be totally fine with starting out as a low-ranked specialist soldier who maybe gets promoted to something like sergeant during the course of the story - or whatever rank is necessary to command the small squads we are used to from Mass Effect (and Dragon Age). Maybe the protagonist would have to make some (not too world shaping!) choices when communication with their superior is temporarily lost, but overall, I'd actually like to do without all the responsibility on my character's shoulders. 

[Tex]

As long as we can choose wether or not to be a soldier I'm fine with the Hawk approach that's why I didn't like that were with N7 well that and the whole human centric thing. Soldier characters are just to stiff for my liking but that's just me.

[Blackguard]

An armyscout with a high enough rank to lead a few people.

An able former mercenary captain.

A member of an irregular/militia part of the Colonists.

Irregular pathfinder-battalion... whatever.

 

Wouldn't be that difficult to work a little with that stuff.

Depends alot on how narrow the storyline will be, how hard the railroad will be, they send us on the new adventure.

[DaemionMoadrin]

It's an example dude! I obviously can't give you a scenario in Andromeda in which the principle I'm putting forward will apply since I know jack **** bout Andromeda. So I'm using Shepard as an example! I'm sorry if it's not clear but I don't know how else to get what I'm trying to explain across. Simple put, leaving too much up to players is impossible as it would not be possible to integrate all the branches into a single cohesive story. Which is kinda why they give you the war hero to start with that meets all the requirements for the story to make sense. They can't give you a trainee and hope you make him into a war hero cos if you don't, the story no longer fits. And no, you can't argue giving players choice and then use "game over" as a way to ensure the "right" choices" are made.

 

For it to work in ME3 you'd have to start as Shepard on shore leave during the Skyllian Blitz or later on Torfan or that Thresher Maw encounter. If you fail the mission objectives or die, then it's game over. If you succeed, then you earned the war hero/ruthless/survivor title yourself.

 

Since we never got to play those scenarios ourselves, we just got handed the backstory. Imagine DA:O without the origins, instead your character is created in Ostagar and you get two lines of text explaining your past. Which is something they tried to do in DA:I and it sucked.

 

I really don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

[LoRD KYRaN]

An armyscout with a high enough rank to lead a few people.

An able former mercenary captain.

A member of an irregular/militia part of the Colonists.

Irregular pathfinder-battalion... whatever.

 

Wouldn't be that difficult to work a little with that stuff.

Depends alot on how narrow the storyline will be, how hard the railroad will be, they send us on the new adventure.

 

I think DA:O's prologue method fits perfectly into this scenario. You can have like 5,6 different backgrounds that start of with basic training etc. In the end, they'll link up at a mission. During this mission, the way you handle it will determine you personality. You can literally be the Butcher of Torfan, so to speak, if you choose to. And all this leads to you getting your journey on. Simple concept, proposed earlier in this thread, that should keep most people happy.

 

For it to work in ME3 you'd have to start as Shepard on shore leave during the Skyllian Blitz or later on Torfan or that Thresher Maw encounter. If you fail the mission objectives or die, then it's game over. If you succeed, then you earned the war hero/ruthless/survivor title yourself.

 

Since we never got to play those scenarios ourselves, we just got handed the backstory. Imagine DA:O without the origins, instead your character is created in Ostagar and you get two lines of text explaining your past. Which is something they tried to do in DA:I and it sucked.

 

I really don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

 

 

Firstly, it has to start in ME1. ME3 is too late to have a flashback bout it.

 

Secondly, what exactly do you want? Your first post said something along the lines of "Leaving it up to the player". Are you arguing for more choice or do you just want to be able to fight the battle that makes you a hero? Cos that's what this latest post of yours seems to indicate. If it's the latter, then we're on the same page. If the former, then I say it doesn't work.

 

Thirdly, I think it's hard to understand because you contradict yourself and aren't very clear on what exactly it is you want. Or maybe it's just me. I thought my example was clearly an example but that took you some time too soo I guess it's both of us.

[Ahriman]

For it to work in ME3 you'd have to start as Shepard on shore leave during the Skyllian Blitz or later on Torfan or that Thresher Maw encounter. If you fail the mission objectives or die, then it's game over. If you succeed, then you earned the war hero/ruthless/survivor title yourself.

 

Since we never got to play those scenarios ourselves, we just got handed the backstory. Imagine DA:O without the origins, instead your character is created in Ostagar and you get two lines of text explaining your past. Which is something they tried to do in DA:I and it sucked.

 

I really don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

So you basically want to see these heroic deeds instead of just being told about them? Well, it's difficult for me to understand how it's different from plot perspective and how it makes PC more or less "special".

[DaemionMoadrin]

So you basically want to see these heroic deeds instead of just being told about them? Well, it's difficult for me to understand how it's different from plot perspective and how it makes PC more or less "special".

 

The difference is that -you- made the PC special through your actions. It didn't start out that way, you were just another nobody.

[RatThing]

I simply want a protagonist who is damn good at his/her job and respected for that. So he/she would have a reputation in the new universe but one that isn`t as overdrawn as Shepards. I don't want a protagonist again that is considered so important and irreplaceable, that people would even resurrect him/her.    

[Sylvius the Mad]

Totally normal.  Blank slate protagonist with nothing special about him at all.

[KaiserShep]

Totally normal.  Blank slate protagonist with nothing special about him at all.

I'd say it's a guarantee that the protagonist will at least be abnormal in his or her ability to kill lots and lots of enemies with just a 2 person team at their back. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

I'd say it's a guarantee that the protagonist will at least be abnormal in his or her ability to kill lots and lots of enemies with just a 2 person team at their back. 

 

 

I hope this time we can take our full squad with us. I hate leaving people behind, being useless. Or if they stay on the ship, then they should do some kind of job there. I don't know... calibrate the guns or something.

[KaiserShep]

We might be able to do that, but only for a major endgame mission. The Mako itself is proof that our squad throughout the game will remain a three-person team, since it's too small to fit several people. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd say it's a guarantee that the protagonist will at least be abnormal in his or her ability to kill lots and lots of enemies with just a 2 person team at their back.

I would prefer symmetrical mechanics where everyone is governed by the same rules.

[LiL Reapur]

 

I hope this time we can take our full squad with us. I hate leaving people behind, being useless. Or if they stay on the ship, then they should do some kind of job there. I don't know... calibrate the guns or something.

 

[DaemionMoadrin]

We might be able to do that, but only for a major endgame mission. The Mako itself is proof that our squad throughout the game will remain a three-person team, since it's too small to fit several people. 

 

Pfft, Mako schmako... if they really wanted, they'd be able to give us a team of 6 or 8. The problem is that the consoles couldn't keep up with that.

 

Perhaps we will only have 4 or less companions, who knows?