131 réponses à ce sujet

[Youknow]

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

 

If ME:A is a stand alone game, who cares? The main character lives and others will die. End of Story.

 

On the other Hand.

A game duology or trilogy does require a forward looking storyline. To avoid entanglements from key decision /results plot points in the next game,  killable characters need to be eliminated from all choices. Alternatively, game #2 can resolve character live/die choices in game #1  by having them retire.  Thus you can have a "clean" slate with new companions and keep some old ones if they were not "in the possible kill list".

 

 What needs to happen is that in a duology or a trilogy, the game needs to be mapped out from the start, meaning that the makers can have control over who lives or dies and know exactly what the ramifications are before they even complete the first game, so there's no scramble to make people revive and/or have ridiculous plot armor.

 

The retirement plan could work, but you could also have the characters themselves form mini alliances. Using the ME trilogy, you could have stuff like:

 

if Garrus is dead, Tali will not come. If Miranda dies, Jacob won't go. If Jacob won't go, then Kasumi stays as well. That way, you can establish character relationships are reasoning for why certain people won't go as well as their deaths themselves. So literally, you can force the player to have certain factions of people at key points rather than have people missing. IE, if Garrus dies, then the game pretty much acts as though Tali dies in terms of party member usage. You might see her, but instead of being given a choice to have Tali rejoin you, she auto-declines.  

 

 

Should-be-dead Leliana's situation ending up making perfect in context. They provided an explanation, most players with that world state were just filled with too much frothing indignation at her re-appearance to wait for it. 

 

And it's kind of hard to have an explanation when your Warden literally slices her head off. The explanation literally doesn't work well and it literally took them essentially throwing their hands up and saying "yeah, she's a spirit." Which... Is worse because at this point, you can essentially say that this character is NOT Leliana. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Being able to die at any time limits the character's significance to the story. Solas, for example, must be able to live in order for his part of the story to continue. If he could die at any time, then that thread dies with him, unless they do like ME3 and have stand-ins, which I consider to be vastly inferior.  

 

As for a story simply not happening, that's only workable if it's something small, like a companion quest, but again, something like Solas is a major story development that can't simply be abandoned before it's resolved. 

Sure it could.  And since you never saw the end, it wouldn't look unresolved.  It just wouldn't be there.

 

The narrative isn't discernible while you're in it.  Only after the fact can you see the plot arc.  By having the characters be mortal, each playthough could produce a radically different story just by having some content appear or not based on the availability of a relevant character.

 

I further suggest that the companions shouldn't be such big pieces of the plot that they affect it so.  That makes it a story about them, rather than a story about my character.  This is why, in my headcanon, Hawke is the one who blew up the Chantry; Anders was merely a patsy.  But if the characters do affect the plot greatly, we could accommodate that simply by not allowing world state imports, something I've been requesting for a long time anyway.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And it's kind of hard to have an explanation when your Warden literally slices her head off. The explanation literally doesn't work well and it literally took them essentially throwing their hands up and saying "yeah, she's a spirit." Which... Is worse because at this point, you can essentially say that this character is NOT Leliana. 

For all we know, the original Leliana was a spirit.  Dualism also neatly provides coherence on this.

 

People who are annoyed at how Leliana was handled have to be trying to be upset, because it takes a ton of assumptions to make BioWare's solution break (it took even more before they offered a solution).

[Youknow]

For all we know, the original Leliana was a spirit.  Dualism also neatly provides coherence on this.

 

People who are annoyed at how Leliana was handled have to be trying to be upset, because it takes a ton of assumptions to make BioWare's solution break (it took even more before they offered a solution).

 

If Leliana was originally a spirit, it becomes awkward as heck, as Leliana clearly talks about her childhood in origins. Which makes it rather strange that you see a spirit like say... Cole not understand humans very well, and you have Leliana not only have a childhood, but understand human concepts exceptionally well. And if that's the case, it opens up more holes than closes them, because now instead of thinking "Leliana went off to go worship the maker like we'd think if she was alive," or "Leliana is dead." Now it leaves "who and what exactly IS Leliana?" She's no longer just a human, but something else entirely. 

 

The reason why people get annoyed about it, is because there was literally no reason to bring Leliana back. No one would have even been able to have been upset if they didn't bother doing that. 

[KaiserShep]

I disagree.  I think they should full on TWD outta this ****.  Make us care about characters, only to have them blown away.  I am not joking about this either. 

 

EDIT :  Or eaten by zombies.  Uhhh, BTW for any of you that haven't watched season six of TWD, slight spoilers.

 

This should really depend on the tone of the story. With The Walking Dead, the central cast is basically awash in a hopeless mire of countless reanimated dead. It makes sense that every one of them is just inches away from being offed in the story and while we might be surprised by who gets it, we kind of expect it to happen to any one of them at any time. It's similar with Game of Thrones. Everyone is awful virtually all of the time and everyone buys it because of course they do. I don't believe that Mass Effect should have that kind of tone, and I would not welcome it. 

[spinachdiaper]

There are too many loose ends in every recent Bioware games. I'd rather not have more than a few long term companions in the ME:A trilogy/saga and if it's in the plans that one or more of the others gets killed it's not a major world changer.

[Lady Artifice]

This should really depend on the tone of the story. With The Walking Dead, the central cast is basically awash in a hopeless mire of countless reanimated dead. It makes sense that every one of them is just inches away from being offed in the story and while we might be surprised by who gets it, we kind of expect it to happen to any one of them at any time. It's similar with Game of Thrones. Everyone is awful virtually all of the time and everyone buys it because of course they do. I don't believe that Mass Effect should have that kind of tone, and I would not welcome it. 

 

Same. I can deal with it on GoT, Walking Dead, AHS...but if they were to bring that quality of uncertainty about whether to sympathize with any of the characters, because they keep walking through a rotating morality door into a Mass Effect game, as though that alone is a sign of complexity, I would be less than enthused. 

[karushna5]

I think the replacement characters get a bad rep. Wreav and Padok Wiks for example are very different and in some cases (like Padok) I liked them more. I really was amazed at how well Bioware did that.

 

On the other hand, the suicide mission played hell with ME3. It limited their input and story potential, put onus on Liara, and in general left them weaker than they could be potentially. But also, too many characters for the trilogy. Killing some off made sense but in some cases it felt like a check list.

 

I think if ME2 had the same number as ME1 (6) +2 DLC it would have worked better. Trilogy and ballooning characters makes it hard. It led to the ME2 group being out for the count and each having a different and sometimes bizarre reason to be where they are. Edi and James had to be made just so we could have an engineer and a Soldier to round out Liaras adept if we killed everyone.

 

Out of the 8 possible companions, 3 were new characters. add in the fact that you can't have Ashley and Kaiden at the same time, and nearly half of the crew can be new, and had to be. I feel that we could have brought it more together with the same characters from ME2. Namely Miranda and maybe Jack, for cerberus, Mordin for the Krogan, Legion for the geth vs Quarian debate, and Samara for the Ardat Yakshi.

 

The end of a trilogy is where old companions can die. Mordin could still die disabling the device, but you fought with him first. Miranda can die against her father, but you could spend time with her beforehand. I think that would be a more impactful end than what was had, also? Epilogues at the end, they are needed.

[Helios969]

Companions should be able to die if it makes for a good narrative.  For that matter companions should be able to leave and/or betray you if your leadership style / value system runs counter to their own.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If Leliana was originally a spirit, it becomes awkward as heck, as Leliana clearly talks about her childhood in origins. Which makes it rather strange that you see a spirit like say... Cole not understand humans very well, and you have Leliana not only have a childhood, but understand human concepts exceptionally well. And if that's the case, it opens up more holes than closes them, because now instead of thinking "Leliana went off to go worship the maker like we'd think if she was alive," or "Leliana is dead." Now it leaves "who and what exactly IS Leliana?" She's no longer just a human, but something else entirely.

The reason why people get annoyed about it, is because there was literally no reason to bring Leliana back. No one would have even been able to have been upset if they didn't bother doing that.

Whereas, I think that's a good reason to bring her back. She wasn't essential to DAO - the Warden didn't even have to meet her. I didn't like how in ME3 all of the squadmates from ME2 were coincidentally relevant. I think that damaged the credibility of the setting.

[Sanunes]

I think the replacement characters get a bad rep. Wreav and Padok Wiks for example are very different and in some cases (like Padok) I liked them more. I really was amazed at how well Bioware did that.

 

On the other hand, the suicide mission played hell with ME3. It limited their input and story potential, put onus on Liara, and in general left them weaker than they could be potentially. But also, too many characters for the trilogy. Killing some off made sense but in some cases it felt like a check list.

 

I think if ME2 had the same number as ME1 (6) +2 DLC it would have worked better. Trilogy and ballooning characters makes it hard. It led to the ME2 group being out for the count and each having a different and sometimes bizarre reason to be where they are. Edi and James had to be made just so we could have an engineer and a Soldier to round out Liaras adept if we killed everyone.

 

Out of the 8 possible companions, 3 were new characters. add in the fact that you can't have Ashley and Kaiden at the same time, and nearly half of the crew can be new, and had to be. I feel that we could have brought it more together with the same characters from ME2. Namely Miranda and maybe Jack, for cerberus, Mordin for the Krogan, Legion for the geth vs Quarian debate, and Samara for the Ardat Yakshi.

 

The end of a trilogy is where old companions can die. Mordin could still die disabling the device, but you fought with him first. Miranda can die against her father, but you could spend time with her beforehand. I think that would be a more impactful end than what was had, also? Epilogues at the end, they are needed.

 

Don't get me wrong I don't dislike the replacement characters, but I dislike what they represent. I would have much preferred to have the replacement characters over the returning ones if it meant that they had a bigger role in the game which most of the returning/replacement characters felt lacking to me in their roles.

Modifié par Sanunes, 06 novembre 2015 - 04:01 .

[rocklikeafool]

Ashley and Kaidan are basically the same.

Were we playing the same Mass Effect games?!

 

Because Ashley is basically a xenophobist who reforms through working with the members of your team. Kaidan's story mainly focused on how he had issues with his Biotic powers, because he has an older form of Biotic hardware and a (former) ******* trainer.

 

So...how in the name of all f*cks are they the same?!

 

I agree with your main point, in spirit. But personally, I feel it can sometimes make games more compelling if you're forced to choose a certain character over another.

[AresKeith]

Were we playing the same Mass Effect games?!

 

Because Ashley is basically a xenophobist who reforms through working with the members of your team. Kaidan's story mainly focused on how he had issues with his Biotic powers, because he has an older form of Biotic hardware and a (former) ******* trainer.

 

So...how in the name of all f*cks are they the same?!

 

Because their content was reduce to basically being the same because they could die in ME1

[goishen]

Same. I can deal with it on GoT, Walking Dead, AHS...but if they were to bring that quality of uncertainty about whether to sympathize with any of the characters, because they keep walking through a rotating morality door into a Mass Effect game, as though that alone is a sign of complexity, I would be less than enthused. 

 

 

Right.  However, it would make the universe be in control.  Not you.  It would place the universe directly in the driver's seat and we're just here for the ride.  Personally, I feel that we've had too much control over the universe, hell of all universes.  Plus, there's no one saying that we'd have to actually make the decision whether they live or die, a la Ash or Kaiden.  They can get wtfpwned by plenty of other things in cutscenes and how we deal with it is up to us.  There's very little morality there.  There is some, and I won't argue that.  But very little.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If Leliana was originally a spirit, it becomes awkward as heck, as Leliana clearly talks about her childhood in origins. Which makes it rather strange that you see a spirit like say... Cole not understand humans very well, and you have Leliana not only have a childhood, but understand human concepts exceptionally well.

Because all spirits are the same?

And if that's the case, it opens up more holes than closes them, because now instead of thinking "Leliana went off to go worship the maker like we'd think if she was alive," or "Leliana is dead." Now it leaves "who and what exactly IS Leliana?"

Those holes are a good thing. The world shouldn't be so neat. But if you need an explanation, it's in that ambiguity where we can build headcanon.

Having things unexplained is a positive feature.

[Youknow]

 

Whereas, I think that's a good reason to bring her back. She wasn't essential to DAO - the Warden didn't even have to meet her. I didn't like how in ME3 all of the squadmates from ME2 were coincidentally relevant. I think that damaged the credibility of the setting. 

 

 

And bringing people back from the dead simple because the writer(s) liked them is even worse. That means that the game plays by no rules but the whims of the current writer. ME3's squadmate usage was a disaster in that regard, but that was an issue with poor planning, and paves no reason for Leliana to be revived through handwaves. 

 

 

 

Because all spirits are the same?

 

No. Of course not. However, that doesn't leave much room for an explanation on things. To make this easier to understand why it's bad to do things like that, let's imagine DA:4 for a second. Imagine this game has a dwarf know magic. Your character asks "I thought dwarves couldn't use magic." The dwarf responds with "well they thought wrong." And says nothing else. Would you not feel cheated by that explanation? If there's no real rules to play by established circumstances, it makes it difficult to become invested in anything. Leliana being a spirit always would be fine-- if she was ALWAYS a spirit, but she isn't. She's a spirit to handwave a retcon, and causes more problems because spirit Leliana acts identical to human Leliana under all circumstances outside of you not choosing her to be the divine. Which makes it more wonky than clears things up. Her not coming back would have been much better. If they wanted a permanent maker follower to be a character, then you make them a NPC that has no reason to get in the PC's way so they cannot die. 

 

 

 

Those holes are a good thing. The world shouldn't be so neat. But if you need an explanation, it's in that ambiguity where we can build headcanon.

What you're literally saying is that plotholes are a good thing in a story. That's not ambiguity. That's just plain poor planing. Ambiguity would be something like Sten's fate if you don't get his sword back. You don't actually see anything that happens to him, so it's you can pretty much say anything you want that happened for him. And ambiguity only works when there aren't definitive things established. 

 

 

Having things unexplained is a positive feature. 

 

 

Only in certain instances. Like say, the avatar for the character the player plays as. The less words put into his/her mouth, the better. Having unexplained things just *happen* are the same reasons that you have things like Udina suddenly being Councilor in ME3, and there's nothing given to the player as any real explanation for how / when Anderson decided to resign as Councilor and step down, or how Udina of all people managed to take the spot. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Because their content was reduce to basically being the same because they could die in ME1

Exactly. I've said this before but Ashley and Kaiden had the exact same role in the plot going forward because both could die in Mass Effect 1.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What you're literally saying is that plotholes are a good thing in a story.

No, they're a good thing in a roleplaying game.  The story does not exist until after you've played through it.  And each playthrough's story is different - sometimes radically different, depending how the ambiguity in the lore gets resolved.

 

The writers don't write the game's narrative.  The writers write the game's setting, which includes a bunch of events.  But the narrative isn't authored; it's emergent.

[RoboticWater]

No, they're a good thing in a roleplaying game.  The story does not exist until after you've played through it.  And each playthrough's story is different - sometimes radically different, depending how the ambiguity in the lore gets resolved.

 

The writers don't write the game's narrative.  The writers write the game's setting, which includes a bunch of events.  But the narrative isn't authored; it's emergent.

A setting with a bunch of events? Sounds a lot like a narrative to me.

[Pasquale1234]

No, they're a good thing in a roleplaying game.  The story does not exist until after you've played through it.  And each playthrough's story is different - sometimes radically different, depending how the ambiguity in the lore gets resolved.
 
The writers don't write the game's narrative.  The writers write the game's setting, which includes a bunch of events.  But the narrative isn't authored; it's emergent.

At least it can be, and should be in an RPG.

I'm not sure that's true of... very many of Bioware's games anymore. They've become awfully linear with enforced pacing, piles of cutscenes, and PCs that feel more like NPCs. The player really doesn't have enough agency to build much of the eventual narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A setting with a bunch of events? Sounds a lot like a narrative to me.

If the protagonist didn't exist, then that would be the narrative, yes.

 

But add in the player's input and the narrative grows much larger.   The writers' content becomes merely a portion of the narrative - the whole narrative doesn't exist until the player adds his efforts through gameplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

At least it can be, and should be in an RPG.

I'm not sure that's true of... very many of Bioware's games anymore. They've become awfully linear with enforced pacing, piles of cutscenes, and PCs that feel more like NPCs. The player really doesn't have enough agency to build much of the eventual narrative.

Where that is true, we should criticize it.

[straykat]

If the protagonist didn't exist, then that would be the narrative, yes.

 

But add in the player's input and the narrative grows much larger.   The writers' content becomes merely a portion of the narrative - the whole narrative doesn't exist until the player adds his efforts through gameplay.

 

And it still doesn't mean anything if there aren't consequences to the choices.

 

That's my one nitpick I have from your previous posts about this. I'm with you on players shaping the narrative. I just think it's futile if the writers don't help deliver on the consequences well. For example, I remember you sticking with a DAO storyline where you made Wynne a blood mage. But that doesn't work as well anymore as the original game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And it still doesn't mean anything if there aren't consequences to the choices.

 

That's my one nitpick I have from your previous posts about this. I'm with you on players shaping the narrative. I just think it's futile if the writers don't help deliver on the consequences well. For example, I remember you sticking with a DAO storyline where you made Wynne a blood mage. But that doesn't work as well anymore as the original game.

The consequences are in your (and your character's) reaction to those events, which then further alters the narrative by causing you to make different choices.

 

There are choices in the game where the game acknowledges different options.  But it doesn't acknowledge motives, and that's important - because it can't know the motives.  If a character - Wynne, for example - advocates a specific course of action, and you don't listen to her because you think she's a massive hypocrite (because Blood Magic), that can change your action.  And if that action is acknowledged by the game, then the game is (indirectly) acknowledging all of that headcanoned content.

[Statichands]

Maybe Bioware should just let  George R. R. Martin write the script for Andromeda