43 réponses à ce sujet

[Sid1205]

Imagine the possibilities of becoming a tyrant, prisoners of war or die, for ex. you are Jabba taking Leia as your slave

[Sid1205]

if you want to bring civilization to the four corners of the map Galaxy, have I got the game for you

 

 

 

Alternatively if you can't wait for this game's as yet undetermined release date

 

 

Will most likely be a 3rd person RTS, but yes, quite close enough, ME is a 1st person game.

[KaiserShep]

Because choices with consequences are one of the things people expect in an RPG?There are plenty of potential opportunities in the way you go about it, too. Conquest, negotiation, trade/barter can all have different implications with different sets of consequences, and have a huge impact on how other societies view the influx of the milkies.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really enamored with the idea of getting into the minutiae of colonial development, nor do I realistically expect any meaningful consequences of establishing more military installations than space orphanages. I'm not totally put off the idea since I only have a vague idea of what this could entail, but it's a bit of a tough sale. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of a scenario akin to the batarian side mission in ME2 with the missiles, where saving the military installation maintains an alliance presence, but at the cost of civilian lives, and then the reverse if you save the colonists (which I always do).

[RoboticWater]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really enamored with the idea of getting into the minutiae of colonial development, nor do I realistically expect any meaningful consequences of establishing more military installations than space orphanages. I'm not totally put off the idea since I only have a vague idea of what this could entail, but it's a bit of a tough sale. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of a scenario akin to the batarian side mission in ME2 with the missiles, where saving the military installation maintains an alliance presence, but at the cost of civilian lives, and then the reverse if you save the colonists (which I always do).

I think it's important to note that this particular side mission (much like many others in the series) had neither immediate tangible effects nor any future ramifications large or small. I don't even remember an receiving an email about it.

 

It's a nice thought, but let's see BioWare properly handle minor choices and consequences before we trust them with potentially complex ecosystems with variable outcomes.

[Pasquale1234]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really enamored with the idea of getting into the minutiae of colonial development, nor do I realistically expect any meaningful consequences of establishing more military installations than space orphanages. I'm not totally put off the idea since I only have a vague idea of what this could entail, but it's a bit of a tough sale. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of a scenario akin to the batarian side mission in ME2 with the missiles, where saving the military installation maintains an alliance presence, but at the cost of civilian lives, and then the reverse if you save the colonists (which I always do).

I wouldn't expect the decision-making to be so detailed as that, or get too deeply into ecosystem management and the like. What I'm thinking is more along these lines:

-- You need to establish an ag colony for food production. One planet has ideal conditions and available land for your preferred crops but is already (sparsely) populated, another is less than ideal and apparently currently used by pirates staging raids. Which would you choose, and if it's the former, would you try to negotiate permission from the current inhabitants or just go in and take it?

One mission - unless you try the negotiation approach, in which case the inhabitants could ask you to do something else for them. Once established, the ag outpost will produce adequate food, and you will have started building a reputation among other species.

I guess I'm expecting (hoping?) the game will open with us as brand-new arrivals - no established relationships with other species, no hub worlds we can visit without first establishing relationships, etc.

[Lebanese Dude]

I think it's important to note that this particular side mission (much like many others in the series) had neither immediate tangible effects nor any future ramifications large or small. I don't even remember an receiving an email about it.

 

Why should there be tangible effects?

 

Isn't it enough to make the choice? Why does the choice always have to have immediate or visible consequences? Can't they just be there to add roleplaying value? Setting immersion?

 

It can be argued that at some point consequences begin to feel forced.

 

It's especially funny when people want the ENDING to have a tangible effect. In my head I'm like...wasn't the point of the ending to end the game?

 

It's as if imagination is dead.

[RoboticWater]

Why should there be tangible effects?

 

Isn't it enough to make the choice? Why does the choice always have to have immediate or visible consequences? Can't they just be there to add roleplaying value? Setting immersion?

 

It can be argued that at some point consequences begin to feel forced.

 

It's especially funny when people want the ENDING to have a tangible effect. In my head I'm like...wasn't the point of the ending to end the game?

 

It's as if imagination is dead.

I wasn't arguing against functionally pointless missions that only aid roleplaying. I merely contest the idea that BioWare could much more than that. If we're setting up colonies on planets, they would presumably be on planets that we can explore. So in order have control over the fate of these colonies, BioWare would need to create and insert various colony designs into every colonization point as well as implement a complex system to calculate cultural reactions.

 

I agree that some decisions feel forced; I said as much earlier. That's why I think that the player should be neither the soul arbiter of our race nor involved with colonization beyond scouting and clearing out hostile regions. 

 

Also, you can't blame anyone for wanting to see the fruits of their labor. This is a visual and interactive medium, and while some are content to parse things out in their head, others prefer (and expect) that games react to their actions and show results accordingly. There's actually a good video about this.

[Lebanese Dude]

I wasn't arguing against functionally pointless missions that only aid roleplaying. I merely contest the idea that BioWare could much more than that. If we're setting up colonies on planets, they would presumably be on planets that we can explore. So in order have control over the fate of these colonies, BioWare would need to create and insert various colony designs into every colonization point as well as implement a complex system to calculate cultural reactions.

 

I agree that some decisions feel forced; I said as much earlier. That's why I think that the player should be neither the soul arbiter of our race nor involved with colonization beyond scouting and clearing out hostile regions. 

 

Also, you can't blame anyone for wanting to see the fruits of their labor. This is a visual and interactive medium, and while some are content to parse things out in their head, others prefer (and expect) that games react to their actions and show results accordingly. There's actually a good video about this.

 

Well I'm not arguing against there being consequences. Those are always nice. The idea laid out in your first paragraph is rather good.

 

What I was talking about was the fact that some people are not satisfied with non-visible conclusions. Just think of War Assets. Those are tangible, but you see complaints left and right.

 

I found them to be a strikingly good medium between the two extremes of totally ignoring our past choices and letting us experience every possible conclusion in a "ME: The Extended Epilogue" game instead of ME3.

 

Some of your past choices were included in missions, while others were delegated to the War Assets. A lot of minor quests here and there added to their value. You didn't see that those Salarian pods were helpful, but the war assets documentation explains their usage.

 

A lot of people here complained about that. It makes me wonder, what should they have done instead?

 

A similar argument could be made for the War Table mechanic in DAI. A lot thought it was pointless because you didn't see the results for yourself. The whole point was to establish an identity for your Inquisition in a twist on roleplaying.

[RoboticWater]

Well I'm not arguing against there being consequences. Those are always nice. The idea laid out in your first paragraph is rather good.

I'd like it as well, but that's a lot of work to add on top of a AAA RPG with lots of exploration. I've played enough Ubisoft games to know that there's next to zero chance that BioWare can make colonization mechanics interesting for me, because there just isn't enough time and aren't enough resources.
 

What I was talking about was the fact that some people are not satisfied with non-visible conclusions. Just think of War Assets. Those are tangible, but you see complaints left and right.

Think about it like the mass Star Wars EU de-canonization that Disney did a while ago. Disney wasn't ordering a mass book burning; the EU's stories will still exist, yet people were angry. People like to know that the things they care about mean something and similarly they like to know that what they do has an impact.

Like I said, some are happy imagining that meaning for themselves, but I think most people like knowing that their actions will physically affect something.
 

I found them to be a strikingly good medium between the two extremes of totally ignoring our past choices and letting us experience every possible conclusion in a "ME: The Extended Epilogue" game instead of ME3.
 
Some of your past choices were included in missions, while others were delegated to the War Assets. A lot of minor quests here and there added to their value. You didn't see that those Salarian pods were helpful, but the war assets documentation explains their usage.
 
A lot of people here complained about that. It makes me wonder, what should they have done instead?

It's all about presentation.

What I despise about war assets is that it took all of my actions and boiled it down to a mere number. This has two problems:
For one, it's gamey. There's nothing that shows the seams of a game more than a one-dimensional stat, and that overt display of mechanics diminished the immersion of the universe. How are these numbers an accurate portrayal of war? Why is Wrex worth this much and a squadron of fighters worth this much? How is this specific number "enough" to fight the most difficult battle in the history of the universe? By all means do some math to determine the outcome, but do it behind the scenes.
More importantly, it's telling and not showing. People aren't moved by numbers; numbers are boring, mechanical, and apathetic. People don't care that their number is bigger, they care that Wrex is happy. They want to see their bro charge into the final battle guns blazing. They want to see the rachni make good on their promise or break it. They don't want to hear it second hand or imagine it in their head; they want to see it.
 
The ideal scenario with Mass Effect 3 (or something closer to it) would be to have around 3 scenes each dependent on the previous scenes and actions made during the trilogy. If you united or strengthened the galaxy, you get three progressively more successful missions and vice versa. Each scene would contain major cosmetic changes depending on decisions (salarian/krogan, quarian/geth, rachni). Obviously, this takes a lot of work, so I'd even be happy with an entirely static mission with only the cosmetic changes. Just show me that what I did changed people, now which color choice I get, people.
 
I don't think people expect every choice to matter in the end, just the big ones. A nod or two to some of the smaller choices is perfectly acceptable.

A similar argument could be made for the War Table mechanic in DAI. A lot thought it was pointless because you didn't see the results for yourself. The whole point was to establish an identity for your Inquisition in a twist on roleplaying.

Again, the problem is that people generally don't care about that identity unless they see other people in the game about it caring about it. I don't even remember any small mentions mid game that the Inquisition was "being very forceful," or "had ears in far too many places." Only the epilogue made a quick remark about it. More than that, there were precious few missions that evolved depending on how you played them. Negotiation missions didn't fall through because people thought you were too militant and spy operations didn't fail because you lacked the right connections. Considering it's just text, BioWare could have at least the world feel more reactive. It also might have been nice to see a few of NPCs related to these missions to drop by Skyhold (if it makes sense with the outcome).

 

It also doesn't help that the War Table just felt like a mobile game. There was no strategic depth to it, so the people who care more about gameplay were left out to dry. It mainly was a "send the more qualified person to get a reward for you," mini-game.

[Malanek]

I'm just not sure the time frame that would be required to set up colonies and become cities fits in with a bioware story. How many years is the story likely to span? If there is a relatively small population base that makes the trip to Andromeda, say less than 100,000, spreading out and establishing more than one or two colonies would seem completely detrimental. Especially given the extremely slow expansion precedent Bioware established for humanities population of the Milky Way in ME1.

[Lebanese Dude]

I don't think people expect every choice to matter in the end, just the big ones. A nod or two to some of the smaller choices is perfectly acceptable.

 

 

It also doesn't help that the War Table just felt like a mobile game. There was no strategic depth to it, so the people who care more about gameplay were left out to dry. It mainly was a "send the more qualified person to get a reward for you," mini-game.

 

Good reply but I'm going to focus on these two points since they are the gist of it.

 

For the first point, what you deem acceptable is different than others. Your suggestion basically implies that you want the minor details to be ignored and have the ending decided by a couple of decisions.

 

Is that really what Mass Effect was about? The entire trilogy screams "cooperation". The war assets function is not any more "gamey" than any other statistic in the game. It is a rough estimation of the strength of the resistance thanks to your contributions. That every choice potentially having significance, however small, is exactly what players typically want. The issue is "to what degree should they be shown". Many here want them to highlight everything when it is not possible.

 

The major choices may not have had a direct influence on the possible outcome, but they did have the benefit of providing closure for their respective chapters in their storyline. Isn't that what's ultimately important?

 

Regarding the second point, your argument is irrelevant. Those who enjoy the mechanic like it. Those that don't are free to skip it. It is not required, nor is it necessary beyond basic quest initiation. Nobody was left out to dry. The same can be said about every other mechanic in the game from crafting to exploration.

 

Furthermore, it can be argued that those trying to always achieve the maximum potential in everything do not care about the intricacies of the choices. You can't argue for a deeper storyline while simultaneously denigrating the war table. Lore is lore no matter its origins. The War table could just have easily been a bunch of codex entries in this game and the next, except this time you had a hand in how history plays out.

 

Still, I do agree that there could have been more visible outcomes from the War Table missions.

[RoboticWater]

Good reply but I'm going to focus on these two points since they are the gist of it.
 
For the first point, what you deem acceptable is different than others. Your suggestion basically implies that you want the minor details to be ignored and have the ending decided by a couple of decisions.

I don't think it is. The major complaint behind the backlash was that the ending was decided by exactly one choice at the very end and that our choices didn't seem to show up at all during the final battle. 
 
As for what gets ignored, I'd say BioWare should've weighted the importance of each choice and provided an appropriate outcome. Incidentally, there's a bunch of largely inconsequential decisions (or decisions inconsequential in the grand scheme of a war) that could get brushed under a rug or dealt with in an email or a short news cast. Bigger choices might get a cutscene like the Ascention blowing up a reaper or some NPC you saved showing up on the front lines. The biggest decisions actually make a difference in the way battle goes down and how the game ends. That's not ignoring small choices, that's just being realistic.
 
It would be a little absurd if finding turian insignia and matriarch writings had an impact on the war effort. Not that they couldn't (I'd be perfectly fine if they got a mention), but BIoWare have to divide their resources sparingly, and I think a few big changes based on some choices are better than very few changes based on a lot of variables.
 

Is that really what Mass Effect was about? The entire trilogy screams "cooperation". The war assets function is not any more "gamey" than any other statistic in the game. It is a rough estimation of the strength of the resistance thanks to your contributions. That every choice potentially having significance, however small, is exactly what players typically want. The issue is "to what degree should they be shown". Many here want them to highlight everything when it is not possible.

It's not more gamey than any other statistic, but the thing it represents is vastly more complex than what a number can describe. It's pointlessly contrary to the reality of war. By all means, show me a list of my supporters and supplies, but don't over simplify for no reason.
 
Again, if this is a rough estimation, how do we know when we have enough? We're supposedly fighting the biggest bad of them all; how could we possibly know what enough is? More importantly, why did the developers want us to feel confident at all? When you fill up that bar to the "good enough" point, there's no reason for the player to worry because the game tells you everything's going to be fine apparently. That defeats any emotional tension you might have going into the final battle. Had this mechanic been obscured more (maybe you would ask Hackett how things were going and depending on the hidden EMS value, he would respond positively or negatively), then the player is still attached to their successes emotionally through a character and might still feel a bit weary about a supposedly impossible fight.
 
I think players like when the small stuff makes a difference, but only when that differences are individual to each choice. I couldn't name half the stuff I did to get my EMS up because I didn't care about it once its processed for points. I might be glad that I did "things in general," to support the cause, but I don't much care about my individual actions unless they're showcased individually. 
 

The major choices may not have had a direct influence on the possible outcome, but they did have the benefit of providing closure for their respective chapters in their storyline. Isn't that what's ultimately important?

I'm not saying it isn't important. In fact, I think people are a bit overly critical of the ending in this regard. ME3 was an ending overall, and I think each individual storyline did a good job of taking our choices into account (other than the Rachni); however, the ending gave us nothing. There were a few nods here and there, but the ending ultimately looked the same no matter what.
 
Like I said; I'd be more than happy if the changes to the ending were purely cosmetic. I don't need the dominoes to fall in a different pattern, I just want to see the people and things I care about be present during the fight. 
 

Regarding the second point, your argument is irrelevant. Those who enjoy the mechanic like it. Those that don't are free to skip it. It is not required, nor is it necessary beyond basic quest initiation. Nobody was left out to dry. The same can be said about every other mechanic in the game from crafting to exploration.

 I've always disagreed with this. Being optional is no excuse for being bad, especially when the system is used for progression. Players who wanted to be the military commander or politician and didn't feel like pretending to like something that was poorly made have to either trudge through a disappointing gameplay mechanic or ignore it and feel as though they were missing out. 
 
BioWare also have limited resources, so if they're going to spend them adding in more systems rather than polishing the ones they have, I certainly hope those extra features are good. As it is, the War Table only adds to the experience if you're in the minority of people willing to consciously ignore its problems. I might be more sympathetic if this were a side mission or two, but this is a whole system. It needs to be good or I'm going to have a worse impression of the game.
 

Furthermore, it can be argued that those trying to always achieve the maximum potential in everything do not care about the intricacies of the choices. You can't argue for a deeper storyline while simultaneously denigrating the war table. Lore is lore no matter its origins. The War table could just have easily been a bunch of codex entries in this game and the next, except this time you had a hand in how history plays out.

It's like Destiny though. I don't care if the lore is good; if it isn't presented well, it doesn't matter. There's a balance that needs to be struck between how much work the writer needs to do presenting their material and how much work the player has to do to understand it. I think asking the player to sit through a needlessly boring system is asking too much for what is essentially a slightly variable codex entry.
 
Some of the table missions were interesting and funny and of course, lore is always nice, so it's disappointing that most people won't care because it was presented so poorly.
 

Still, I do agree that there could have been more visible outcomes from the War Table missions.

I just think that there was ample opportunity to make an engaging side activity that was thematically evocative of a military organization gaining power. Had it been more like a game of chess than "Press A for a reward in an hour," the War Table could have been a fun little lore enhancement that could appeal to everyone.

[Sid1205]

There is an opportunity for stealth gameplay, if there is an opportunity for scouting the area, recon or maybe stealing some tech from the more powerful races.

[Arcian]

if you want to bring civilization to the four corners of the map Galaxy, have I got the game for you

 

It really bothers me how developers fail to understand how gravity works. I'm pretty sure some of those planets were within each other's Roche limit, and even if they weren't that kind of ultra-closely clustered formation would cause the mother of all gravitational sh!tstorms. Not to mention the dense-as-hell asteroid fields - the reason real-life asteroids are so far apart is because if they were any closer, gravity would cause the asteroids to coalesce into larger, more distantly separated objects.

 

Science, man.

[Steelcan]

It really bothers me how developers fail to understand how gravity works. I'm pretty sure some of those planets were within each other's Roche limit, and even if they weren't that kind of ultra-closely clustered formation would cause the mother of all gravitational sh!tstorms. Not to mention the dense-as-hell asteroid fields - the reason real-life asteroids are so far apart is because if they were any closer, gravity would cause the asteroids to coalesce into larger, more distantly separated objects.

 

Science, man.

I'll cut them slack on that form over function bit, no one wants to play a game with realistic space physics and exploration, spending three game years getting around the sun wouldn't bu much fun

[Degrees1991]

It might just be like Black Flag sending ships and all. It was fun helped getting money and better equipment easier expect the same if they were to put this in the game.

[Nitrocuban]

I wanna have something llike Fallout 4's settlement building. Way better than endless "collect 1000 DERPS" sidequests to keep people playxing the game for hundreds of hours.

[LinksOcarina]

That is what I'm afraid of, ME:A becoming just about the protag in front of a console deciding which colonies supplies will go to, where strike teams will go.

 

Could be a good game that way...

 

Just not an RPG. 

[Lucca_de_Neon]

I highly doubt you'll do any of those things. You are not the inquisitor. You are a pathfinder with no prestige whatsoever (yes, N7 but unknown in the grand scheme of things). You are the person that gets the job done, someone else is going to decide what the job entails and frankly i prefer it that way. Means that i get to spend more time socializing with my squad instead of looking at consoles like i know what i'm doing