36 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

Rannoch and Tuchanka aside and smaller character moments, Mass Effect kinda set itself up for failure in terms of the "choices matter" mantra and I think it's easy to point out why. It happened again with DA:I and DA4 will probably be proof of it:

 

Bioware, your choices are too big and epic in size and cause/effect to ever feasibly follow up on.

 

Who will become the new divine in DA:I? Well, it probably doesn't matter because that's such a big change that affects the world itself in such a big way (when DA4 skips to 10 years in the future) that you're relegating it to being a cameo or reference or a meetup with whoever is Divine and hear her whine about how hard it is to be Divine.

 

The best biggest choice/consequence in the franchise was killing the council in ME1 and seeing it reflected upon in ME2, but not ME3 because it just created a new carbon copy of the council. In ME2 you hear everybody on the Citadel reference how humans are cruel and unwanted because they killed the council and it's hard to talk to any NPC without hearing their opinion on what you did in the battle against sovereign. It's strictly dialogue and references as opposed to plot-influential (though you can become spectre if you saved them!) but it's well done and thoroughly handled.

 

The best and most impactful choices were the little things, like saving Maelon's data or rewriting the heretics. Note that none of these were ever made out to be world-shaking, and that's my point. It's very easy to think up a big change as an idea, but it's hard and tons and tons of extra work you create for yourself for when you have to explore that change in detail, let alone when there are two entirely different outcomes that need equal treatment.

 

If there is plans for future Mass Effect games beyond Andromeda, avoid these world-shaking choices as they are impossible to address right later without relegating it to strictly references and cosmetic changes.

[Sartoz]

Big Snip

----------

 

If there is plans for future Mass Effect games beyond Andromeda, avoid these world-shaking choices as they are impossible to address right later without relegating it to strictly references and cosmetic changes.

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>

 

True for a video game series such as ME1-3 but become irrelevant for a new independent story arc. In Andromeda, choices are local to the new story.  "Cosmic" choices can have our hero live, die, have a LI and live/die at the game's end.

 

If Bio plans for an Andromeda trilogy then, indeed, you have a point. As you say, to avoid the Dragon Age story arc mess, the writers need to look at the three and develop the stories with "critical" choices from game1 that affect game2 and from game2 to three. This trilogy macro vision will maintain the "lore" without the need for a Mass Effect Keep. Yes, it's additional work at the start but pays itself off handsomely, thereafter.... assuming that Andromeda is a smash and not a dud.

[Linkenski]

It does not become irrelevant as we don't know if ME:A will be one-off.

[Iakus]

 

Who will become the new divine in DA:I? Well, it probably doesn't matter because that's such a big change that affects the world itself in such a big way (when DA4 skips to 10 years in the future) that you're relegating it to being a cameo or reference or a meetup with whoever is Divine and hear her whine about how hard it is to be Divine.

 

I doubt it's a coincidence that all the candidates become "Divine Victoria" if they are elected.

 

But it's like I say, make the choices matter in the game the choices are made.  Not in some future game that might never be made.

[Linkenski]

I agree, but even so Mass Effect 3's outcomes based on ME1 or ME2 choices that actually mattered made the save-import feature as well as the cliffhanger choices from those previous games feel that much more valid. I didn't make much of saving Maelon's data in ME2 aside from thinking it was simply a moral dilemma and supportive of the world building for the Genophage theme. Then ME3 decided "okay we'll let you cure the genophage" and as it turns out Maelon's data was a perfect opportunity to incorporate a previous choice to make it have more impact.

 

I don't mind letting the sequel handle the outcome of a choice you make as long as that choice isn't so big that there's no room to properly address it for the writers and designers and their budget. They should learn from the past, instead of trying to fool people twice.

 

Don't leave the biggest choice you can think of right at the end and then leave it up for the sequel to show what it's about. The worst one is the ME3 ending where because they knew they didn't even have to think about it anymore they could just make it downright insane and nonsensical.

[Rascoth]

I doubt it's a coincidence that all the candidates become "Divine Victoria" if they are elected.

Not to mention with Trespasser all of them end up having the same problems...

[Iakus]

I agree, but even so Mass Effect 3's outcomes based on ME1 or ME2 choices that actually mattered made the save-import feature as well as the cliffhanger choices from those previous games feel that much more valid. I didn't make much of saving Maelon's data in ME2 aside from thinking it was simply a moral dilemma and supportive of the world building for the Genophage theme. Then ME3 decided "okay we'll let you cure the genophage" and as it turns out Maelon's data was a perfect opportunity to incorporate a previous choice to make it have more impact.

 

I don't mind letting the sequel handle the outcome of a choice you make as long as that choice isn't so big that there's no room to properly address it for the writers and designers and their budget. They should learn from the past, instead of trying to fool people twice.

 

Don't leave the biggest choice you can think of right at the end and then leave it up for the sequel to show what it's about. The worst one is the ME3 ending where because they knew they didn't even have to think about it anymore they could just make it downright insane and nonsensical.

I admit, when Mass Effect was first released I found the idea of decisions being imported into later games to be an extremely cool idea.  Unfortunately, the reality of the situation proved highly UNDERwhelming.  To the point where I now consider it essentially a waste of resources.  The choices end up being decorative and little more.   Sometimes not even that.

 

Who cares how well I did or didn't treat a crew mate when in the next game I get called a traitor by them, and can end up romancing them in the third game?

 

What does it matter if you help defeat Space Cthulhu only to have your actions largely forgotten two years later by the very people you saved?

 

Not to mention the bizarre permutations people and organizations go through in order to fit the "vision" of the next game (hi, Cerberus!)

 

And don't get me started on the Human Councilor fiasco.

 

Leaving choices hanging shackles the writers, limits what they can do (or at least do well)  Make every game standalone, let choices and divergence exist in each game.  But start subsequent games with a clean slate.

[KaiserShep]

Eh, with Dragon Age's main quests mainly ending the same way, my interests generally lie in the central cast and how decisions affect them. For the most part, BioWare's been pretty good at their treatment there (save for some messy death retconning which is hopefully done with). Mass Effect's weakness in this respect is that there was too much character shuffling, since the increasingly numerous companion roster all revolved around a single protagonist that couldn't possibly take everyone along for the ride in the end. And then there's the Collector Base decision, and the obvious deciding the fate of either entire factions/species and ultimately the entire galaxy. DA's never done anything remotely similar. But it was obvious to me that ME3 was supposed to be the once-and-for-all affair. 

 

So long as BioWare continues to let us have meaningful alternate outcomes for the main characters, I'll be happy. I agree that "big decisions" are a lot of trouble since shaking the setting can make it difficult to follow-through in the next game, but I think that DA benefitted from a lot of these big things being largely localized. It's not as if the Divine decision or who rules Orlais should have any immediate or even meaningful impact on a place like Tevinter anytime soon, or have any impact at all in the ancient rebel elf plot.

[Rocks_and_shoals]

Its not that difficult to reconcile all three ME3 endings into a standardised new universe in the same manner that they reconciled choices before. I don't know why they had to give up the MW galaxy?

[vbibbi]

Its not that difficult to reconcile all three ME3 endings into a standardised new universe in the same manner that they reconciled choices before. I don't know why they had to give up the MW galaxy?

It's not? How would you reconcile the three widely diverging endings?

[UpUpAway]

 

Its not that difficult to reconcile all three ME3 endings into a standardised new universe in the same manner that they reconciled choices before. I don't know why they had to give up the MW galaxy?

 

 

Uh, maybe because they just wanted to... you know... explore something new.

 

On topic - I agree that they do tend to write themselves into situations where the choices are too game shattering to be expanded upon.  Case in point is Arrival where the choice actually was made for the player because there was no way to accommodate the anti-choice in the next installment of the game.

[Iakus]

Uh, maybe because they just wanted to... you know... explore something new.

 

There's nothing new in the hundred billion (yes that's billion with a "B" or 100,000,000,000) stars in the Milky Way galaxy?

[Rocks_and_shoals]

It's not? How would you reconcile the three widely diverging endings?

 

Ok the three different endings are

                                                      1. Destruction of AI

                                                      2. Synthesis

                                                      3. Control of AI

 

Destroy AI: The reapers are destroyed as so too is the catalyst. But the reaper carcasses remain in-tact. The MW uses reaper technology to rebuild and advance. The reapers themselves are disassembled. You could add it in a plot point about the Geth and say only active synthetic signatures were destroyed by the crucible such as the reapers. You could say that in ME1, some of the Geth were captured by the opposing Geth side and placed into cold storage as punishment. They were not reactivated and were no changed when the heretics were rewritten. They were also not destroyed as a consequence by the crucible and were rediscovered in the future by the quarians ( or some other race) and reprogrammed or even given sentience by using reaper techonology. If the quarians were destroyed you can make the plot point that some fled the destruction when they saw the Geth were winning the battle and the commodores ships were destroyed throwing the fleet into disarray.

 

                                                  2. Synthesis: The catalyst aids to rebuild the galaxy using reaper technology. Now that synthesis has been achieved it not longer worries about AI turning against biological life. The MW species use reaper technology to advance. Eventually the catalyst decides to willingly decompile because it has completed what it was programmed to do by Leviathan, solve the problem of war between man and machine. The reapers 'die' and leave their carcasses to be disassembled 

 

                                                  3. Control: Shepard takes the place of the catalyst and uses the reapers to help rebuild the galaxy. The galaxy also now have access to reaper technology to advance. Eventually, the shepard AI no longer thinks the presense of  the reapers is useful. They are a symbol of a previous era of oppression and the Shepard AI has helped in creating a brave new world. The reapers are disassembled. The Shepard AI believes that its task at ensuring the future of the galaxy is complete and it either goes into cold storage or degrades over a long period of time like other protheon VIs without reapers to sustain it.

 

Now 500 years after the events of ME3, the galaxy is pretty much the same no matter what ending you chose.

Uh, maybe because they just wanted to... you know... explore something new.

 

On topic - I agree that they do tend to write themselves into situations where the choices are too game shattering to be expanded upon.  Case in point is Arrival where the choice actually was made for the player because there was no way to accommodate the anti-choice in the next installment of the game.

They could have written themselves out of it. Also the mass relay network only accounts for a tiny percentage of the galaxy and on top of that, there were many mass relays which were dark i.e. nobody had explored what was beyond them. With the reapers now inactive and reaper technology available, they could have discovered a whole new world in their own galaxy.

 

There's nothing new in the hundred billion (yes that's billion with a "B" or 100,000,000,000) stars in the Milky Way galaxy?

 

Correct. In that of course there is something new. See above. And its more like four hundred billion in the Milky Way
 

[Iakus]

 

Correct.
 

[Revan Reborn]

Big choices are fine if they are written in a certain way in which they don't lead to drastically different futures. Personally, I would find more value in the approach of making many small choices along the way that can lead to a very different outcome. A perfect example of a game that had major consequences that were world-changing but still could fit into the lore and not trample over anybody's choices was Shivering Isles. By the end of the expansion, you realize that Sheogorath is actually Jyggalag and that his fellow Daedric Princes put a spell on him for fear of his growing power. Due to the spell finally being broken, Jyggalag puts the player in charge of Shivering Isles, becoming the new Sheogorath.

 

BioWare could do something similar in which whatever this big, ultimate, finale of a choice is won't have an impact on the world going forward. It will somehow remove the protagonist from the events of the world, but it still allows player choice to be preserved.

[Khrystyn]

Comment removed. I'm not thinking straight tonight.

[Rosstoration]

make the choices matter in the game the choices are made.  Not in some future game that might never be made.

 

I cannot like this enough, finally someone speaks sense. The pay off for some choices ended up being so over hyped and drawn out. It's like your choices in ME1 loaded a gun, you waited through ME2 for it to go off, and ME3 it misfired. One of the only choices that "mattered" from a narrative and gameplay perspective ended up being who to kill on Virmire.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The effect of any choices made in the game need to be minimized if carried from one game to the next. This needs to be done for the sake of writing a cohesive narrative otherwise you get too many butterflies. You cannot have essential characters die like what happened in the Suicide Mission - people could have an import to ME3 where only two non-essential characters survived (i.e. Zaeed and Kasumi). It's best not to hype how much your choices matter, but to keep them localized to the character's story. Or you could let the player do whatever they want with the understanding that there will only be two player choices that carry over, and the rest will be canon chosen by the writers.

[Khrystyn]

Comment removed.

[Sartoz]

It does not become irrelevant as we don't know if ME:A will be one-off.

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

You didn't read paragraph 2

[Battlebloodmage]

Personally, I don't mind big choices but then canonize a version. All the timeline happening, they just happen to choose one to continue the story. Like with ME3, all the endings are canon, but they just happen to choose the Destroy ending since it has prettier color, but that doesn't mean the other endings didn't happen. Otherwise, they should just stuck with insignificant small choices. 

 

The big problem with the paragon and regenade system is that it's basically too black and white. That's why most people choose paragon because it's the "right" choice to do, on top of bad choices don't have any benefit attached to it while there are many good benefits with being a paragon. 

[UpUpAway]

There's nothing new in the hundred billion (yes that's billion with a "B" or 100,000,000,000) stars in the Milky Way galaxy?

 

Never said there wasn't anything new in the Milky Way galaxy. - I said maybe because they "just wanted to."  If I have a mountain in my home area that I haven't climbed yet... should that stop me from just wanting to climb a different mountain someplace else?  I figure it's their game... they can "just want to" do anything they like with it.  We players are really just along for the ride.

[slimgrin]

ME has the most diametrically opposed choices of any RPG I've played. Lets face it, subtlety is missing in this franchise. DA has done a far better job..I mean a FAR, FAR better job at presenting moral dilemmas and multiple outcomes. It's all due to Casey Hudsen's 'let's remove the fiddly bits' approach. They dumbed things down in ME2 so you could be 12 and still understand all the moral conflicts.  

[Khrystyn]

I agree that major decisions should (mostly) be limited to its effect in the game at hand. sH0tgUn jUliA is right on point.

 

I'm going through ME-2 right now for the first time (I'm late to the series). I just read on masseffect.wikia that there are war assets I should accumulate now, that I will need in order to gain some useful war assets in ME-3. I'd be pretty upset that I might have to completely redo ME-2, just so I can earn enough war asset points to finally get all possible endings in ME-3. I'm glad I've completed Kasumi's and Zaeed's loyalty missions.

 

What I'd like to see is a minor story element take on a more useful role in the progression of the succeeding episodes. For example: Sha'ira's Trinket. It could have been used to activate Vigil on Ilos, initiate or stop the destruction of the Collector base, and activate the Crucible. When she gave it to Shepard, she said: "[It's a] small mystery. I have never learned its use or purpose, but I sense it is time for me to pass it on [to you]. And Shep and Sha'ira could have talked about it when they met in the Silver Coast Casino, in ME-3: Citadel.

[In Exile]

I doubt it's a coincidence that all the candidates become "Divine Victoria" if they are elected.

But it's like I say, make the choices matter in the game the choices are made. Not in some future game that might never be made.

Bioware has never really gone for this. DAO was as much of an offender as ME1 in that regard.