206 réponses à ce sujet

[stormhit]

Blame EA all you want; but it's not just them. No artist wants to sink so many hours of time and effort into telling a story, only to have huge segments of the story unavailable to a significant percentage of the public. I'm sure they're proud of what they've done and want people to be able to experience everything they put so much work into. "Choices" necessarily limit that. You end up spending lots of time on content that it's entirely possible your average player may never even see. So it's a trade off. You want to make the experience itself feel unique and tailored to the player; but at the same time you can't branch out the whole narrative entirely.

[Booglarize]

RiverRat wrote...

Ah yes, "choices". We have dismissed that claim.

Now that really made me laugh. 

[lltoon]

CONSEQUENCES

Modifié par lltoon, 27 février 2010 - 05:31 .

[Vaenier]

I was disappointed that the choices from ME1 didnt play a larger role in ME2, but I accept that it was the middle of the trilogy and hope that ME3 is really influenced by our actions in the past two games.

[Zulu_DFA]

stormhit13 wrote...

Blame EA all you want; but it's not just them. No artist wants to sink so many hours of time and effort into telling a story, only to have huge segments of the story unavailable to a significant percentage of the public. I'm sure they're proud of what they've done and want people to be able to experience everything they put so much work into. "Choices" necessarily limit that. You end up spending lots of time on content that it's entirely possible your average player may never even see. So it's a trade off. You want to make the experience itself feel unique and tailored to the player; but at the same time you can't branch out the whole narrative entirely.

Yeah! Talimance, that was a true masterpiece. And they wanted every single customer to experience it. Somehow, I have not and am not planning to correct that.

Seriously, digital entertainment is on its way to become more interactive and tailored to each individual taste. And the developers in the future will be committing more resources to that end, so that different people could experience entirely different content under the same trademark. BioWare may take one step further in that direction now. Or they may refrain from taking this step.

[mopotter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

mopotter wrote...

...paragon or renegade (really wish there were other names for these two viewpoints) ...

Paragon = tranquil
Renegade = frantic

 I like frantic or maybe pragmatic.
I think I like honorable better than tranquil.  Tranquil makes me think of DA with no emotions.  Both of my Shepards have deep emotions. 

[Zyrious]

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

Actually, you're wrong. The human council outright refuses to speak with you, and there's a stronger vibe of "They know the reapers exist, they just dont care and dont take them seriously as a threat", it's even stated they want to keep you out of the public eye so no-one finds out about the reapers.

That's one area where, atleast in the background, it's a whole different ball field.

[finnithe]

Mass Effect 3 being unwinnable is a terrible idea. If anything, your choices in previous games should affect only how well the battle with the Reapers goes, in that it would affect how many worlds they conquer, and how many armies they defeat.



I want more Black and Grey Morality damnit.

[Zyrious]

finnithe wrote...

Mass Effect 3 being unwinnable is a terrible idea. If anything, your choices in previous games should affect only how well the battle with the Reapers goes, in that it would affect how many worlds they conquer, and how many armies they defeat.

I want more Black and Grey Morality damnit.

In Mass Effect 2 it's possible to outright lose and get shepard killed. Why would it be bad for that to happen in ME 3? Just make it where you'd have to have a really lazy 3 playthrough's to actually get that ending(s).

Infact, in Mass Effect 3 it should be just as possible for shepard to die at the end (in combination with either winning or losing the war). Would add a huge element, as long as the signs are clear for what you need to do renegade wise, paragon wise, and in-between to achieve some form of victory.

[Zulu_DFA]

mopotter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

mopotter wrote...

...paragon or renegade (really wish there were other names for these two viewpoints) ...

Paragon = tranquil
Renegade = frantic

 I like frantic or maybe pragmatic.
I think I like honorable better than tranquil.  Tranquil makes me think of DA with no emotions.  Both of my Shepards have deep emotions. 

It's basically explained in the Dr. Chackwas's e-mail about the facial scars, which I take as BioWare's official explanation for the paragon/renegade system.

"Pragmatic" definitely has nothing to do with certain Renegade answers/interrupts.  Like punching people in the face, or pushing a guy out of the window. If you absolutely must kill a man, you do it by shooting him in the head.

"Honorable" is closer to Paragon, yet remember, that there are a lot of "codes of honor", sometimes mutually exclusive. Samara's Code, for example, absolutely prohibits her from sparing a life under certain circumstances, making her choose "renegade interrupts" way more often, than a pragmatic Shepard (who would like to interrogate a prisoner before deciding on wether to kill him of not.)

Paragon/renegade is not a morality system. It's an emotions system.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 27 février 2010 - 06:04 .

[Alneverus]

Pandaman102 wrote...

jtav wrote...

I disagree. A choice that only makes the game harder/unwinnable is no choice at all. You only succeed in frustrating long time players who must now go back and play both games again so they can beat the third.
I think Bioware handled choices about as well as can be expected. The "feel" of the Galaxy is very different on a pure paragon than renegade. If the plot diverges too much, Bioware essentially has to make games within a game with the same amount of resources. The results wouldn't be pretty.

So if the person who is tasked to save the galaxy is a psychopathic serial killer who destroys galactic alliances, encourages war between the races, commits genocide, destroys useful technology, and sabotages the organizations he/she works it's unreasonable those actions come around to bite everyone in the ass?

Pandaman has a very good point.

Though my own thoughts follow along a different scenerio. If you made certain choices then you should have an effect in which the victory is bittersweet. Basically this sort of situation should thrust the galaxy into a dark age in which war and strife are common place for a very long time.

On the flip side, if choices made on the opposite end of the scale then you could have it push toward a golden age once the victory is achieved.

How is this 'unfair' to a renegade? It isn't. You face consequences for these actions. And this sort of situation could easily be handled to reflect for people that never played the game to begin with. However, the people that have played one or both should see their choices influence the story a lot more readidly.

One example of a choice that should have had a greater importance to some aspect of Gameplay would have been the body issue in ME1. The player had two choices; either get it released or keep it for study to find better ways to protect against Geth type weapons. When this is imported over into ME2 you either get an e-mail from the guy if you returned it or you simply get nothing... What happened to the research? Why not allow for something of this nature to provide further upgrade of personal armor? It wouldn't be fair?

That isn't a valid arguement because the person that has this choice in their import has already played the previous game. They helped make the game a success and thus when you have a chance to do something of this nature the developer should. On the flip side if the person returned the body why couldn't the husband do something to help out Shepard in some personal way? Say a piece of personal armor and/or credits?

Or in Bring Down the Sky you finally get a chance to off the Batarian bastard if you didn't before. Or if you did, then you deal with some Batarian **** looking for revenge. Not that hard to incorporate. You could put the encounter right in the middle of an Omega recruitment.

"But I never played ME1 so I can't get it!"

That's the point. The entire reason to have things like this is a way to thank your previous players that most likely helped to make the game a success. Which, when you develop a second which has a 3rd planned it will help encourage people to further buy the products. Or to check out the older game and play it. How would that, even with sales being more pre-owned? Include bonuses, etc. for the DLC portions of the game as well.

Hell it's even a win-win for the corprate guys in the long run.

[Flamewielder]

Pandaman102 wrote...

jtav wrote...

I disagree. A choice that only makes the game harder/unwinnable is no choice at all. You only succeed in frustrating long time players who must now go back and play both games again so they can beat the third.
I think Bioware handled choices about as well as can be expected. The "feel" of the Galaxy is very different on a pure paragon than renegade. If the plot diverges too much, Bioware essentially has to make games within a game with the same amount of resources. The results wouldn't be pretty.

So if the person who is tasked to save the galaxy is a psychopathic serial killer who destroys galactic alliances, encourages war between the races, commits genocide, destroys useful technology, and sabotages the organizations he/she works it's unreasonable those actions come around to bite everyone in the ass?

Pandaman's ME3 playthrough:

Psycho-Shepard wakes up, catches a brief glimpse of the SPECTRE's come to stop his rampage before the Widow anti-material round takes out half his brain.

Unphased, Pandaman remains in character and picks up his copy of Dante's Infeno and pops it into his XBox360...

[Flamewielder]

Seriously, I agree with Alneverus; keep in mind the plan is for the trilogy to be released within the XBox360's life cycle, so a noob can pick up ME3 and later decide he'll buy ME1 and ME2 for the same platform.



This said, I'm not sure that would work as well for the PC version, given the increasing demands on graphics cards.

[ratzerman]

Zyrious wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

Actually, you're wrong. The human council outright refuses to speak with you, and there's a stronger vibe of "They know the reapers exist, they just dont care and dont take them seriously as a threat", it's even stated they want to keep you out of the public eye so no-one finds out about the reapers are.

How is that any different from how the old council treats you?  Sure, they might be a little friendlier.  But from a story perspective, there is no difference whatsoever. 

Saved Council - doesn't trust you, won't help you, kicks you back to Terminus systems.
Human Council - doesn't trust you, won't help you, kicks you back to Terminus systems.

The choices we make are window dressing. 
They change the way some things look and feel, but the outcomes have already been pre-determined. 

Modifié par ratzerman, 27 février 2010 - 07:00 .

[Vaenier]

How many here would be willing to pay 100$ for ME3 to have 2 completely different ways of playing the game? How many would pay 150$ for 3 choices?

a straight line game costs 50$ to make. if you want different lines to take, then you have to be willing to sacrifice some money, or story length to get them.

[JJ Long]

Right now the choices in each game are not about real consequences.

They are more about the path and story you take to get to the end.

Winning the game in Mass Effect 3 should only be based on choices made in Mass Effect 3.

However, how you win and what interesting little story elements and twists could change depending on what you did in prior games.

For instance, depending on how you have been playing the previous two games, you could have the Geth, Rachni, Quarians, unified and genophaged-cured Krogans all on your side at the end. Or you can have Ceberus and their solution they have created using Reaper tech.

That is what I am hoping for.

There is a singular path for the player to take, only that the story elements change depending on previous choices. Or that seems how they have been building it.

[Mondo_]

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

Modifié par Mondo_, 27 février 2010 - 07:17 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Vaenier wrote...

How many here would be willing to pay 100$ for ME3 to have 2 completely different ways of playing the game? How many would pay 150$ for 3 choices?
a straight line game costs 50$ to make. if you want different lines to take, then you have to be willing to sacrifice some money, or story length to get them.

Me.

I've played many $50 games, that I was sure of beating because, well, most of them had a "quicksave" function. I'm long bored with that and practically quit gaming.

Now I'll gladly pay $100 for a game that I'll be really excited to play just because I know that in 2 previous $50 games I may have screwed badly enough to make it unwinnable. Otherwise it'll be "just another $50 game". It'll be like a parachute jump. Or a casino. Entirely new type of experience in the history of gaming. Emotionally engaging, as BioWare like to put it. You may be afraid of it, but you'll like it too.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 27 février 2010 - 07:25 .

[danielassault]

I agree with what you are saying. All the choices I made in ME1 didn't have any major effect in ME2. Nothing.
Why not create, for example, specific quests for certain things you have done? The consequences of your action in ME1 aren't game or story changing in ME2.

Modifié par danielassault, 27 février 2010 - 07:28 .

[ratzerman]

Mondo_ wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

[Alneverus]

Flamewielder wrote...

Seriously, I agree with Alneverus; keep in mind the plan is for the trilogy to be released within the XBox360's life cycle, so a noob can pick up ME3 and later decide he'll buy ME1 and ME2 for the same platform.

This said, I'm not sure that would work as well for the PC version, given the increasing demands on graphics cards.

This really wouldn't have that much of an effect on the current graphic demands for the PC. A lot of the art assets are used across all three platforms. So long as it was on par with the ATI Xenos in the 360 a PC graphics card would easily be able to handle it. If I recall the Radeon HD 2000/3000 series is easily comparable.

[Alneverus]

ratzerman wrote...

Mondo_ wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

Probably not what they were intending. If it denied the ability to do the quest with the paragon lines then there might be something to it.

[Bigdoser]

Mondo_ wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

LMAO omg XD

[Bigdoser]

Bigdoser wrote...

Mondo_ wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

Hmm galaxy is in chaos if the council are dead.

[PseudoEthnic]

The only real consequences I see that can happen in Mass Effect 3 is toward the end. Maybe you have to do this or persuade that person because you did such and such in the past. I can't see anything more than that, and still make the game enjoyable. Much like Jade Empire, most of the choices don't matter until the very end, when the final battle is on the horizon. Honestly, I'm just amazed that my choices were imported into the new game period. You're asking for too much.