157 réponses à ce sujet

[Killroy]

By mooks. And not even strong mooks. So it was that situation, at least for the ones staying behind with the bomb. 

 

Ashley and Kaidan aren't the unstoppable killing machines that Shepard is. That upper platform is a kill box. The only escape route puts you directly in the line of fire. Standing and fighting puts you directly in the line of fire. Your argument comes along with the requirement that we ignore the inherent video game concession that gameplay does not equate to narrative. If it did then Saren never should have been able to grab Shepard by the neck, and it would have taken a hydrogen bomb to kill Wrex, and a single shot never would mortally wounded Mordin, and and and.

[In Exile]

But that wasn't the situation on Virmire. One squadmate was pinned down in a bad position, incapable of getting away on their own.

 

By a bunch of mooks. That was exactly the situation on Virmire. Sovereign didn't just nuke them from orbit. 

[In Exile]

Ashley and Kaidan aren't the unstoppable killing machines that Shepard is. That upper platform is a kill box. The only escape route puts you directly in the line of fire. Standing and fighting puts you directly in the line of fire. Your argument comes along with the requirement that we ignore the inherent video game concession that gameplay does not equate to narrative. If it did then Saren never should have been able to grab Shepard by the neck, and it would have taken a hydrogen bomb to kill Wrex, and a single shot never would mortally wounded Mordin, and and and.

 

But that's exactly the issue - the gameplay concessions are arbitrary and confusing, and create widely varying power levels that make little sense. 

[Killroy]

But that's exactly the issue - the gameplay concessions are arbitrary and confusing, and create widely varying power levels that make little sense. 

 

Who are they confusing? Certainly not the general audience. Only the most persnickety of players complain about such things, and certainly not because they're confused.  

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Im not sure you remember that part correctly. In my playthrough Kaidan was with the Salarians who were supposed to make a distraction while the other team infiltrates the facility and plants the bomb. Kaidan and the Salarians had no other choice but to do a frontal assault in to position that were fortified. They managed to break trough but they sustained heavy loses. You for one said that they could have made a killbox and killed the assaulting Geth, but the Geth were doing the same thing to them, assaulting enemy positions that were made to support each other and had kill boxes of their own and yet they managed to break trough.

 

Dont think that because Rambo can kill endless waves of enemies everybody can.

No, I'm not remembering incorrectly. You're thinking of a different scene. The scene I'm talking about is the team of either Ashley or Kaidan and some Alliance troops we have on the Normandy who stay behind to guard the bomb. That's the place the Geth dropship shows up to and drops off the reinforcements and when you have to decide who to save. The people in the team I'm talking about had cover and clear line of sights whereas the Geth did not, so had every advantage to hold out. But as we see in the cutscene if we save the one with the Salarian team, they decided to ignore that and instead stand out in the open.  They were being idiots. And no, I don't think everyone can, but when Ashley and Kaidan have proven they can on multiple occasions in even worse situations, I expect them to since that's what the game told us. 

[ACika011]

No, I'm not remembering incorrectly. You're thinking of a different scene. The scene I'm talking about is the team of either Ashley or Kaidan and some Alliance troops we have on the Normandy who stay behind to guard the bomb. That's the place the Geth dropship shows up to and drops off the reinforcements and when you have to decide who to save. The people in the team I'm talking about had cover and clear line of sights whereas the Geth did not, so had every advantage to hold out. But as we see in the cutscene if we save the one with the Salarian team, they decided to ignore that and instead stand out in the open.  They were being idiots. And no, I don't think everyone can, but when Ashley and Kaidan have proven they can on multiple occasions in even worse situations, I expect them to since that's what the game told us. 

I kinda get your point but never the less it was possible for them to get killed and sometimes you need a bit of drama, and in this case it wasn't forced so im completely fine with it. Now let's stop arguing because the mods will close this thread for going of topic.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I kinda get your point but never the less it was possible for them to get killed and sometimes you need a bit of drama, and in this case it wasn't forced so im completely fine with it. Now let's stop arguing because the mods will close this thread for going of topic.

Possible, sure. It's possible I get killed while sitting here typing. But my complaint is how the team there acted not how any logical soldier would and did everything to increase the probability of survival to the point you could have saved both. Bioware designed it to be possible, albeit challenging.

But then they cut it, and the reason for the cut seems to be for forced drama since it stopped being a "save one and try to save the other, possibly succeeding" situation and became a "save one or the other" situation.

 

Sometimes drama is good yes, but forced drama rarely is. For example, Mordin's sacrifice is much more impactful to most players than Thane's sacrifice, because the former wasn't a forced scenario but a result of your actions whereas the latter was. Or your crew being turned into goo before your eyes rather than some colonists because you weren't fast enough. The only good example of forced drama in Mass Effect I can think of would be Legion's sacrifice, but that is because his character atc was written with that in mind.  

 

I don't think the mods will shut this thread down for this, since we are discussing the topic and being civil while doing so. But if you want to stop, I'll respect your wishes and stop. 

[ACika011]

Possible, sure. It's possible I get killed while sitting here typing. But my complaint is how the team there acted not how any logical soldier would and did everything to increase the probability of survival to the point you could have saved both. Bioware designed it to be possible, albeit challenging.

But then they cut it, and the reason for the cut seems to be for forced drama since it stopped being a "save one and try to save the other, possibly succeeding" situation and became a "save one or the other" situation.

 

Sometimes drama is good yes, but forced drama rarely is. For example, Mordin's sacrifice is much more impactful to most players than Thane's sacrifice, because the former wasn't a forced scenario but a result of your actions whereas the latter was. Or your crew being turned into goo before your eyes rather than some colonists because you weren't fast enough. The only good example of forced drama in Mass Effect I can think of would be Legion's sacrifice, but that is because his character atc was written with that in mind.  

 

I don't think the mods will shut this thread down for this, since we are discussing the topic and being civil while doing so. But if you want to stop, I'll respect your wishes and stop. 

They closed topics for less. I guess we just have to agree to disagree i can see your point but i still think it wouldn't be possible to save them both and it was good we had to make that choice.

[Linkenski]

The "hard" decisions in ME rarely led to meaningful changes, at least not in the game itself.

Yeah. When people say "my choices didn't even matter" about Mass Effect 3, they are really referring to how all the choices with most emphasis on them in the main plot -- Udina or Anderson being councilor; kill or save the council; save or kill the Rachni Queen; Collector base: Save or destroy -- were almost entirely unnacounted for. Not to sell it short. Every one of these (but the collector base thing) has some sort of excuse or cop out for not amounting to anything but in essence all of them are outright ignored or completely downplayed.

 

Both ME3 and DA:I showed me enough choices leading to consequences in the game itself though, and ME2 to ME3 in the subplots was excellent. I'm mostly concerned with the story at hand though and always has been.

 

It would've been great if the Rachni Queen choice had two entirely different levels or scenarios in ME3 or if there simply wasn't any Rachni-husks at all if you killed the Queen in ME1 for example, but really, it was the implications of making the choice the moment I had to do it in ME1 that was ultimately great about the choice. Not trying to say a smart and game-changing consequence wouldn't change it, but really, I don't expect Bioware games or Telltale or any of those companies to actually deliver on their "choices matter" promises. To me I was always content with the fact that the moment of choice feels meaningful to me.

[AlanC9]

 
Sometimes drama is good yes, but forced drama rarely is. For example, Mordin's sacrifice is much more impactful to most players than Thane's sacrifice, because the former wasn't a forced scenario but a result of your actions whereas the latter was. Or your crew being turned into goo before your eyes rather than some colonists because you weren't fast enough. The only good example of forced drama in Mass Effect I can think of would be Legion's sacrifice, but that is because his character atc was written with that in mind.  

Oh, please... having a way out is just as "forced" as them not giving you a way out. It's scripted either way.

[WarGriffin]

Yeah. When people say "my choices didn't even matter" about Mass Effect 3, they are really referring to how all the choices with most emphasis on them in the main plot -- Udina or Anderson being councilor; kill or save the council; save or kill the Rachni Queen; Collector base: Save or destroy -- were almost entirely unnacounted for. Not to sell it short. Every one of these (but the collector base thing) has some sort of excuse or cop out for not amounting to anything but in essence all of them are outright ignored or completely downplayed.

 

 

The Rachni as you say are perfect example of that. Regardless of your choice The Reapers will always have Ravagers.

 

Ultimately Mass Effect ... shows that giving the players control of narrative items is... ultimately to big of task to undetake atleast with how Mass effect was

 

Mass Effect 1 was not suppose to be the first part of  a trilogy... Ergo They were letting the players have choices themselves didn't know how they'd play out.

 

 

____

 

I always did joke that if they every did an enhanced rereleased of the Trilogy... They'd put in all the cut content XD

 

Kaiden and Ashley both live scenarios... how the hell would that work?

[pdusen]

Look, I'm all for "tough decisions", but when *all* of your choices are equally bad, and they're all *really bad*, it isn't really interesting at all. I love The Witcher series, but this is one thing that they get wrong more often than not.

[Laughing_Man]

Look, I'm all for "tough decisions", but when *all* of your choices are equally bad, and they're all *really bad*, it isn't really interesting at all. I love The Witcher series, but this is one thing that they get wrong more often than not.

 

I agree that you can't make all the choices bad all the time, but I disagree regarding your judgment on The Witcher.

 

The Witcher is not the Game of Thrones, but it's certainly not a Disney story, it's part of the appeal of the universe, and they don't pretend otherwise.

 

DA:I on the other hand, became "disnified" in many ways, I mean, the story had some dark connotations for sure, but I can't remember even one instance of a dark event that had a really strong impact on me in this game (or a positive one for that matter...), the world felt rather sanitized.

Incidentally or not, I found DA:I to be mostly boring.(and mediocre in general, but that's not connected to this particular point)

 

Compare that to TW3, especially to something like the Bloody Baron arc, well, I certainly felt it, and I'm certainly going to remember it for awhile.

The fact that there were no good endings to this particular story, didn't take anything from how powerful it was.

[pdusen]

I agree that you can't make all the choices bad all the time, but I disagree regarding your judgment on The Witcher.
 
The Witcher is not the Game of Thrones, but it's certainly not a Disney story, it's part of the appeal of the universe, and they don't pretend otherwise.
 
DA:I on the other hand, became "disnified" in many ways, I mean, the story had some dark connotations for sure, but I can't remember even one instance of a dark event that had a really strong impact on me in this game (or a positive one for that matter...), the world felt rather sanitized.
Incidentally or not, I found DA:I to be mostly boring.(and mediocre in general, but that's not connected to this particular point)
 
Compare that to TW3, especially to something like the Bloody Baron arc, well, I certainly felt it, and I'm certainly going to remember it for awhile.
The fact that there were no good endings to this particular story, didn't take anything from how powerful it was.

The Witcher 3 on its own was relatively good about balancing good and bad outcomes. I was speaking of the franchise as a whole, and the first two games had a real problem in this regard.

 

As far as your assessment of DA:I, I personally didn't find it much different from DA:O as far as "darkness" goes. People on this forum like to talk about how much "grittier" DA:O is, but I've played it plenty of times and it never felt all that dark to me, with a few specific exceptions. I would say DA2 is darker than either game.

[Laughing_Man]

The Witcher 3 on its own was relatively good about balancing good and bad outcomes. I was speaking of the franchise as a whole, and the first two games had a real problem in this regard.

 

As far as your assessment of DA:I, I personally didn't find it much different from DA:O as far as "darkness" goes. People on this forum like to talk about how much "grittier" DA:O is, but I've played it plenty of times and it never felt all that dark to me, with a few specific exceptions. I would say DA2 is darker than either game.

 

DA:O had some very grim moments.

 

Examples:

 

Spoiler

• Duncan killing ser Jory. The killing of a companion (even if for a moment) because of an "unfair" reason, underlined the moral grayness of the
  Grey Wardens modus-operandi. It certainly startled me into looking at the GW in a new light.
   
• The non-dalish elf origin story was rather grim.
   
• Hespith and her poem was probably one of the creepiest parts of DA:O. (if not THE)
   
• The broodmother itself was a startling and grim sight.
   
• To a more minor degree, The Anvil Of The Void and the secret to making golems.
   
• The DLC the Golems of Amgarrak and its implications. (almost a necromorph invasion...)

 

Compared to these things (I think there are some others as well), the "darkness" in DA:I felt more... detached I suppose.

 

At no point did I feel the urgency of an impending doom, or that crawly feeling of something truly creepy.

 

I think that the above examples can also give DA:2 a run for the money, I mean, even the serial killer part was handled in a way

that took some of the horror away, and aside from that I can't think of much else. (maybe the runaway crazy elf bloodmage)

[Linkenski]

The Rachni as you say are perfect example of that. Regardless of your choice The Reapers will always have Ravagers.

 

Ultimately Mass Effect ... shows that giving the players control of narrative items is... ultimately to big of task to undetake atleast with how Mass effect was

 

Mass Effect 1 was not suppose to be the first part of  a trilogy... Ergo They were letting the players have choices themselves didn't know how they'd play out.

 

 

____

 

I always did joke that if they every did an enhanced rereleased of the Trilogy... They'd put in all the cut content XD

 

Kaiden and Ashley both live scenarios... how the hell would that work?

I would gladly have cut the Citadel Coup out to spend money on the other lacking things though. Granted Citadel Coup is great action and sets up Leng (lol), but it sets up a plot that goes nowhere with Cerberus and Udina overall. ME3's lack of consequence for big things was not becuase it was impossible. It's because ME3 was on short development time and because EA wanted Bioware to focus on drawing in the newcomers more than fleshing the finale out for the longtime fans. I also believe a lot of game developers are iffy on creating content only half the players will see, which is what you do when you create choice/consequence. I would've loved to see ME3 have half as long action segments and cut out some of the bad plot segments for more in-depth payoff  for the choices you made in the earlier games though.

 

I would not condemn it as being impossible at least. It was a bit disheartening to hear Casey say "Completing a video game trilogy is tough, and it could be argued it might never be done again.)

 

I hope not. I really hope not.

[WarGriffin]

I would not condemn it as being impossible at least. It was a bit disheartening to hear Casey say "Completing a video game trilogy is tough, and it could be argued it might never be done again.)

 

I hope not. I really hope not.

 

I'm not saying its impossible.... but its clear that you can't do a trilogy based on the idea of Start with one game and not know where you're going for the next two... cause you didn't know there was gonna be a next two.

 

You kinda have to have this somewhat mapped out or atleast outlined. I mean thats the real reason why ME1 and ME2's BIG choices don't really amount to much

 

 

Its a daunting task that you have to go into with a plan and you can't just wing it from game to game which is what BW did.

[AlanC9]

It's because ME3 was on short development time and because EA wanted Bioware to focus on drawing in the newcomers more than fleshing the finale out for the longtime fans.

It's not like EA was crazy to do that. Only about half of the ME2 players (XBox and PC) played ME1. IIRC ME3 did a little better.

[Il Divo]

^Despite Bioware's "ME3 is the best place to start", I can't exactly say that really lived up in practice. ME3 has a million different problems going on, but catering the story to newcomers wasn't really one of them, imo.

[ACika011]

^Despite Bioware's "ME3 is the best place to start", I can't exactly say that really lived up in practice. ME3 has a million different problems going on, but catering the story to newcomers wasn't really one of them, imo.

Millions of problems? Like what? A lot of people think that ME3 was the best game in the series, the only complain they have is about the ending. I personally think that ME2 was better but i certainly enjoyed ME3.

[Iakus]

I'm not saying its impossible.... but its clear that you can't do a trilogy based on the idea of Start with one game and not know where you're going for the next two... cause you didn't know there was gonna be a next two.

 

You kinda have to have this somewhat mapped out or atleast outlined. I mean thats the real reason why ME1 and ME2's BIG choices don't really amount to much

 

 

Its a daunting task that you have to go into with a plan and you can't just wing it from game to game which is what BW did.

So.  Much.  This.

[wright1978]

Millions of problems? Like what? A lot of people think that ME3 was the best game in the series, the only complain they have is about the ending. I personally think that ME2 was better but i certainly enjoyed ME3.

 

ME3 had lots of problems outside of the utter trainwreck ending(Intro, auto-dialogue and me2 character treatment just to pick 3 off the top of my head) Definitely my least favourite of the trilogy in many areas other than combat.

[Il Divo]

Millions of problems? Like what? A lot of people think that ME3 was the best game in the series, the only complain they have is about the ending. I personally think that ME2 was better but i certainly enjoyed ME3.

 

Well, it's all going to be YMMV at the end of the day. But for myself: bland intro, constant repurposing of Cerberus into a generic enemy, TIM falling to 'indoctrination', Kai Leng really being Kai Lame, handling of several import decisions (Ex: the Rachni, the Collector Base), sidelining of many ME2 characters, the Ending itself, Priority Earth itself being a pretty bland mission compared to the ME2 suicide mission, Diane Allers (admittedly this is a small element), and an overabundance of autodialogue.

 

If I were to narrow down the areas of ME3 I enjoyed, it really comes down to Tuchanka and Rannoch, many of the companion conversations. And the gameplay (also multiplayer), which was by far the best of the 3. I haven't touched the game (or its predecessors) since finishing ME3 Citadel.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Vol_Tang_Clan]

Who to romance is pretty hard. They're all so damned sexy.

[Xen]

Nah, this fanbase hates hard decisions. Look at the furore over the endings. If you don't give the ability for people to have their cake and eat it too simply by being a self righteous Paragon drone, people cry about it.

 

I expect more magic blue dialouge and kumbaya nonsense in ME: A. The central conflict will be solved via the power of friendship.