736 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Which retcons in particular?

Jessica Merizan tweeted strongly hinting that the geth and EDI could survive the Destroy ending (at least in a high EMS version), albiet in a diminished capacity.  The geth would return to their pre-upload Consensus mentality, and EDI would lose her Reaper upgrades effectively crippling her capabilities.  Instead we got confirmation that they all fried

 

Also expected the breath scene to be further explained than an inexplicably Force-Sensitive crew member (if any scene needed "clarity and closure" it was that) but alas we got what we got and were told to be grateful.

[Iakus]

It was the allure of the first game, which appeared to present me with a rather grounded SF story, at least by video game standards. ME2 damaged that with its visual style, unpleasant thematic messages and some lore problems, but the sh*t really hit the fan only with ME3, where the story lost all thematic cohesion and common sense, science and lore were all sacrificed for cheap drama and pseudo-religious BS. The first game made promises that the last game betrayed. That's what I wrote in my extensive review from 2013, and I still hold to it.

 

Why am I still here, you may ask? The answer is simple: curiosity. I do want another SF rp game, so I'm basically still interested, but I won't buy MEA unless and before I know about the storytelling style, the way certain themes are presented and the ending. 

We disagree on a lot of things, but I think you really get why I'm so p*ssed

[Seraphim24]

It was the allure of the first game, which appeared to present me with a rather grounded SF story, at least by video game standards. ME2 damaged that with its visual style, unpleasant thematic messages and some lore problems, but the sh*t really hit the fan only with ME3, where the story lost all thematic cohesion and common sense, science and lore were all sacrificed for cheap drama and pseudo-religious BS. The first game made promises that the last game betrayed. That's what I wrote in my extensive review from 2013, and I still hold to it.

 

Why am I still here, you may ask? The answer is simple: curiosity. I do want another SF rp game, so I'm basically still interested, but I won't buy MEA unless and before I know about the storytelling style, the way certain themes are presented and the ending. 

We disagree on a lot of things, but I think you really get why I'm so p*ssed

 

Not to be nego since you were both polite enough to answer my questions, but isn't that still all boiling down to your own experience? Can't other people have found the games semi-satisfactory, perhaps even marginal improvements in certain respects?

 

And in both cases, wouldn't your ability to walk away from the experiences or games at any time preclude any possibility of lingering on the problems which came before?

[The Elder King]

Jessica Merizan tweeted strongly hinting that the geth and EDI could survive the Destroy ending (at least in a high EMS version), albiet in a diminished capacity.  The geth would return to their pre-upload Consensus mentality, and EDI would lose her Reaper upgrades effectively crippling her capabilities.  Instead we got confirmation that they all fried

 

Also expected the breath scene to be further explained than an inexplicably Force-Sensitive crew member (if any scene needed "clarity and closure" it was that) but alas we got what we got and were told to be grateful.

I agree on that scene. On EDI and the Geth, eh, I wasn't expecting them to change it. Even if not for everyone, it's the 'con' of Destroy, along with not having the Reapers' help to rebuilt (which many don't care about anyway).

 

 

 

@Ieldra/Iakus: I understand your point, and I agree on some parts (my opinion isn't as negative as yours though) but for me the grounded part of the series was lost already at discover of the ancient race of almighty powerful machines. My impression of the series changed on that moment. I don't know if it helped me deal with some of the problems on the following games.

Ieldra, do you have a link of your review? I liked a lot of your posts in the past, I'd like to read your full thoughts on ME3.

[Killroy]

I think the point being made here is that Iakus claims that he's giving BioWare a chance to "redeem themselves," yet maintains an overtly negative position towards nearly everything we've been shown about ME:A. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between caution and deliberately trying to poke holes. In this case, a little more positivity may actually make ME:A a better game, if only in Iakus' eyes.

Why should he pretend he's happy about what he's seeing when it isn't what he wants from the game?
If only he would pretend to like the things he doesn't like he would like the things he doesn't like? It's pretty nonsensical. There's keeping an open mind and there's lying to yourself.

[Iakus]

I think the point being made here is that Iakus claims that he's giving BioWare a chance to "redeem themselves," yet maintains an overtly negative position towards nearly everything we've been shown about ME:A. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between caution and deliberately trying to poke holes. In this case, a little more positivity may actually make ME:A a better game, if only in Iakus' eyes.

Because nothing I've seen about MEA shows anything to be worth being optimistic about.  Even the whole "Andromeda" thing just shows a slash and burn mentality "We've destroyed this galaxy, time to move on to another!"

 

Show me something worth considering and I'll consider it.  But I'm not going to clap politely while watching the franchise continuing down the same path that p*ssed me off in the first place.

 

 

 

Guinevere134, on 02 May 2016 - 1:00 PM, said:
Not to be nego since you were both polite enough to answer my questions, but isn't that still all boiling down to your own experience? Can't other people have found the games semi-satisfactory, perhaps even marginal improvements in certain respects?

And in both cases, wouldn't your ability to walk away from the experiences or games at any time preclude any possibility of lingering on the problems which came before?

Sure.  But the thing is, since this is a choice-based narrative ostensibly with different endings, shouldn't there have been a greater variety of tones for the endings?  not just Mac Walters' railroaded vision?  If you accept his vision, or have the ability to headcanon your own interpretation (something I actually admire about the IT-ers) that's fine.  But plenty of us felt that, at best the endings were poorly thought out and have rather unpleasant moral implications, and at worst robbed the player of agency at a crucial point.  The changes I expected from EC would have at least made those choices a bit more palatable.

 

Not to mention the implications for the galaxy itself.  Even if you accept that Shepard should have the ability, let alone the right, to enforce such changes on the galaxy, you have the problem with, well, not being able to use the galaxy as a setting anymore.  We barely scratched the surface of the Milky Way, and all the lore and history within it.  And now it is effectively ruined for future use.  

[RoboticWater]

Why should he pretend he's happy about what he's seeing when it isn't what he wants from the game?
If only he would pretend to like the things he doesn't like he would like the things he doesn't like? It's pretty nonsensical. There's keeping an open mind and there's lying to yourself.

I'm not saying he should pretend to like what he sees, but he shouldn't dislike what he doesn't see. He's making many negative assumptions about ME:A to fuel his argument for a reboot, which itself is founded on assumptions.

 

That much negativity may cause a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 

Because nothing I've seen about MEA shows anything to be worth being optimistic about.  Even the whole "Andromeda" thing just shows a slash and burn mentality "We've destroyed this galaxy, time to move on to another!"

And a reboot wouldn't say that? BioWare have "destroyed the galaxy," no matter what. Whether they make a new continuity in the same galaxy or a new galaxy in the same continuity, BioWare would be doing the same amount of slashing and burning.
 

Show me something worth considering and I'll consider it.  But I'm not going to clap politely while watching the franchise continuing down the same path that p*ssed me off in the first place.

Don't clap politely, just wait. If you don't like that Mass Effect is going to Andromeda, then fine, but don't pretend to make an objective argument out of an opinion. We have no evidence to prove that traveling to Andromeda is an illogical premise (or that this illogical premise somehow ruins the rest of the game), nor do we know that Mass Effect will somehow lose its entire identity in a new galaxy, and I simply can't imagine how what little evidence we have so far has convinced you that it would.

[Laughing_Man]

Hey, I'm perfectly OK with "wait and see without expectations"... but what keeps cropping up here is "wait and see with negative expectations."... even you couldn't resist throwing in the "I doubt it" and relegating the possibility of ME:A being OK to "stranger things happened before."

 

...

 

From my point of view there is a good reason for all the negativity - just like the brand name Bioware became in the past for some people synonymous with good video games, today the name association is rather negative for many.

 

I am skeptical because if they missed the mark with me the last few games, it might happen on the next as well, but I'm still willing to give it a fair chance

and judge the game on its own merits. (assuming what I learn about the game when information and footage finally come out sounds and looks positive to me...)

[themikefest]

I was hoping for a couple of specific retcons (which tweets suggested could happen) and for "clarity and closure" to smooth out some of the more problematic aspects of the endings.  But sadly those were, if anything, made worse.

For me, the best thing the extended cut fixed was the flashbacks when Shepard chooses whatever ending

[Il Divo]

Eh, I've been called "entitled whiner" and worse for years now for daring to not liking the direction Mass Effect has gone in.  I'm starting to doubt a nuanced conversation was ever in the cards.

 

At any rate, the point is Bioware was great once.  And can be great again.  If they could just remember what they were.

 

This is actually point I was making: the over the top rhetoric. Bioware would be great, "if only they would remember what they were". You may not actually think of Bioware as Darth Vader, but you're falling into the same trap of turning this into a more dramatic turn of events than simply a developer making games you no longer enjoy. Bioware was only ever a business selling commercial products. 

 

Being objective, given the level of dislike you've expressed for the ME series post-ME1 and severe dislike of their spin-off title, with very little information released, in Bioware's position I probably wouldn't expend the effort needed to convince the fans on here. Bioware is going to make Andromeda -regardless of what any of us say- and while I support fans providing input, there is nothing inherently wrong with that decision. 

[tehturian]

In order of preference and the likelihood of actually happening, here are the options I see Bioware could have gone after ME3. 

 

1) Continue Shepard's story with a ME4, following on from the destroy ending. Perhaps, with some handwaving of the destruction of the mass relays to allow some semblance of status quo. Also makes thematical sense as we are playing Shepard's story and you can only play Shepard's story if he's alive and the destroy ending is the only ending with that possibility

 

2) Prequel, likely more small scale in setting. Could use the more interesting parts of the ME universe that were swept aside in favour of reaper mania. 

 

3) Andromeda

 

4) Grab an ending by the balls and move with it. The Mass Effect universe we know and love would be fundamentally different with the possible exception if Bioware chose Control but could also offer something interesting. 

 

4) Hard reboot, the franchise is far too young for this. Whichever way Bioware goes I want to see something new. A reboot would feel like a step backwards. 

 

While I was sceptical at first I've learnt to be a little optimistic for Andromeda. Bioware will have to work really hard to alleviate the homesickness for the milky way ME. I'd say if this game is a flop, Shepard returning for a true ME4 is far more likely than a hard reboot. 

[Killroy]

In order of preference and the likelihood of actually happening, here are the options I see Bioware could have gone after ME3.

1) Continue Shepard's story with a ME4, following on from the destroy ending. Perhaps, with some handwaving of the destruction of the mass relays to allow some semblance of status quo. Also makes thematical sense as we are playing Shepard's story and you can only play Shepard's story if he's alive and the destroy ending is the only ending with that possibility

2) Prequel, likely more small scale in setting. Could use the more interesting parts of the ME universe that were swept aside in favour of reaper mania.

3) Andromeda

4) Grab an ending by the balls and move with it. The Mass Effect universe we know and love would be fundamentally different with the possible exception if Bioware chose Control but could also offer something interesting.

4) Hard reboot, the franchise is far too young for this. Whichever way Bioware goes I want to see something new. A reboot would feel like a step backwards.

While I was sceptical at first I've learnt to be a little optimistic for Andromeda. Bioware will have to work really hard to alleviate the homesickness for the milky way ME. I'd say if this game is a flop, Shepard returning for a true ME4 is far more likely than a hard reboot.

How is Andromeda less likely than two other scenarios? WTF?

[AlanC9]

In order of preference and the likelihood of actually happening, here are the options I see Bioware could have gone after ME3. 
 
1) Continue Shepard's story with a ME4, following on from the destroy ending. Perhaps, with some handwaving of the destruction of the mass relays to allow some semblance of status quo. Also makes thematical sense as we are playing Shepard's story and you can only play Shepard's story if he's alive and the destroy ending is the only ending with that possibility
 
2) Prequel, likely more small scale in setting. Could use the more interesting parts of the ME universe that were swept aside in favour of reaper mania. 
 
3) Andromeda
 
4) Grab an ending by the balls and move with it. The Mass Effect universe we know and love would be fundamentally different with the possible exception if Bioware chose Control but could also offer something interesting. 
 
4) Hard reboot, the franchise is far too young for this. Whichever way Bioware goes I want to see something new. A reboot would feel like a step backwards.

How come 4 is so much lower than 1? Aren't they the same thing except for the PC?

[iM3GTR]

That's what I wrote in my extensive review from 2013

Where could I find this review. It sounds interesting.

[AlanC9]

How is Andromeda less likely than two other scenarios? WTF?

I presume it's his pre-announcement guesswork. Though whenever my estimate of probable outcomes exactly matches my own preference, I figure that I've injected wishful thinking into the estimate.

[Killroy]

I presume it's his pre-announcement guesswork. Though whenever my estimate of probable outcomes exactly matches my own preference, I figure that I've injected wishful thinking into the estimate.

That's a good rule.

[N7Jamaican]

Some people are just afraid of change.  I'm okay with new setting and all. I just hope Andromeda turns out to be as fun and as good as the previous Mass Effect games.

[AlanC9]

Because nothing I've seen about MEA shows anything to be worth being optimistic about.  Even the whole "Andromeda" thing just shows a slash and burn mentality "We've destroyed this galaxy, time to move on to another!"

Wait a minute. Moving around in the setting like this is wholly traditional for Bio. (Hey, you brought up remembering who they were.)

In the FR games, BG2 didn't use any of the locations from BG1, and ToB didn't use any of the locations from BG2. (Many of the companions came back, complete with incoherent backstories and dopey handwaves.) Then NWN1, where we moved the location completely again and dumped all existing characters, SoU, with no locations or characters in common with anything that came before, and HotU, with some of the previous characters and one block of Neverwinter City. Plus a couple of Premium mods with no relation to anything that went before, and several which weren't even set in the FR.

We all know how ME handled this stuff. DA2 and DAI each contain one location from DA:O, with the rest of the game being new places.

[straykat]

It has nothing to do with change. I would happily take a whole new and completely unknown IP over revisiting this one.

[RoboticWater]

It has nothing to do with change. I would happily take a whole new and completely unknown IP over revisiting this one.

I probably would as well... as long as it was another sci-fi action RPG/shooter space opera. I don't particularly care about continuity or lore, I just want this genre filled. Ever since Dead Space stopped coming out and Halo started going to crap, I've had a planet-hopping story-driven sci-fi shooter sized hole in my heart, and CoD Infinite Warfare just isn't going to cut it (for a number of reasons).

 

If Mass Effect is staying (presumably for the name recognition), then so be it. I'm still getting my game, but if BioWare were considering rebooting the franchise, I'd rather they just make up a whole different universe. They'd probably have to if they wanted to patch all the lore and story issues Mass Effect has always had. Why bother revisiting broken lore when we can get something totally new?

[Lady Artifice]

Seriously, it's a shame there aren't more space opera RPGs out there.

[Killroy]

Seriously, it's a shame there aren't more space opera RPGs out there.

Since game makers are nothing if not trend chasers you can bet the new Call of Duty will inspire a gaggle of shooters in space.

[Iakus]

This is actually point I was making: the over the top rhetoric. Bioware would be great, "if only they would remember what they were". You may not actually think of Bioware as Darth Vader, but you're falling into the same trap of turning this into a more dramatic turn of events than simply a developer making games you no longer enjoy. Bioware was only ever a business selling commercial products. 

 

Being objective, given the level of dislike you've expressed for the ME series post-ME1 and severe dislike of their spin-off title, with very little information released, in Bioware's position I probably wouldn't expend the effort needed to convince the fans on here. Bioware is going to make Andromeda -regardless of what any of us say- and while I support fans providing input, there is nothing inherently wrong with that decision. 

But remember the whole "You compared Bioware to a genocidal sith lord" was other people strawmanning me.  I explained the comparison:  Because Bioware was great once and could be again.

 

Well, like I said, maybe their explanation will settle all my doubts and I'll spend six months in eager anticipation.  IT could happen.  I could also be struck by lightning or win the lottery.  But it can happen.  But I also think it's important that there are epople out there, disillusioned fans who remember the ME3 debacle and aren't going to be enchanted by shiny shooting mechanics and who are asking "Why should I trust you again?"

 

 

 

Wait a minute. Moving around in the setting like this is wholly traditional for Bio. (Hey, you brought up remembering who they were.)

In the FR games, BG2 didn't use any of the locations from BG1, and ToB didn't use any of the locations from BG2. (Many of the companions came back, complete with incoherent backstories and dopey handwaves.) Then NWN1, where we moved the location completely again and dumped all existing characters, SoU, with no locations or characters in common with anything that came before, and HotU, with some of the previous characters and one block of Neverwinter City. Plus a couple of Premium mods with no relation to anything that went before, and several which weren't even set in the FR.

We all know how ME handled this stuff. DA2 and DAI each contain one location from DA:O, with the rest of the game being new places.

The BG and NWN games moved from area to area along the Sword Coast.  The same region of the same continent.  They didn't move from Toril to Krynn to Oerth.  Heck they didn't even go from Faerun to Maztica.  And they've got a better justification for doing this, because the magic system allows for such transportation.

 

And Dragon Age also sticks with the same continent.  When and if the franchise goes beyond that I think (hope) that it is done for reasons and with methods that aren't contrivances.

[In Exile]

It was the allure of the first game, which appeared to present me with a rather grounded SF story, at least by video game standards. ME2 damaged that with its visual style, unpleasant thematic messages and some lore problems, but the sh*t really hit the fan only with ME3, where the story lost all thematic cohesion and common sense, science and lore were all sacrificed for cheap drama and pseudo-religious BS. The first game made promises that the last game betrayed. That's what I wrote in my extensive review from 2013, and I still hold to it.

 

Why am I still here, you may ask? The answer is simple: curiosity. I do want another SF rp game, so I'm basically still interested, but I won't buy MEA unless and before I know about the storytelling style, the way certain themes are presented and the ending. 

 

Absolutely not. There was no grounding in the first game at all - "by video game standards" means nothing, because by actual standards, the series was arble-garble nonsense from a scientific POV from the very start. ME2 did... absolutely nothing to change any single part of that, even with the much reviled Lazarus project which is really thematically consistent with the miraculous, sweet-science-y magic they used to revive the Rachni Queen from the dead.

 

ME had lots of structural issues, but "grounded sci-fi" is not a word you can use to describe a bunch of telepathic space elves who can use the force asari. 

[Lady Artifice]

Since game makers are nothing if not trend chasers you can bet the new Call of Duty will inspire a gaggle of shooters in space.

 

But I'm not wishing for just more shooters in space. I'm wishing for more RPG shooters in space, heavy on the RPG.