206 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Asari wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk&feature=related

aaaand Elias Keeler and Elias Kelham (Kelhem?) Is not the same person.

Keeler is an Alliance trade negotiator and a drug addict. You meet him in front of the Flux club in ME1 and the completion of his quest may have some effect on the relations between the Systems Alliance and the Salarian Union.

As for the video, vvvvverrrry interesting!

Basically it busts down my idea about the meaningful consequences for the BIG CHOICES. But as the consequences have been unknown and it has even been unknown if there is any impact, at the time of making the decisions, the players are approaching the CHOICES as the CHOICES. Only in the end we'll know what decisions bring what... And then, yes, we can go back to Eden Prime and replay the entire trilogy as a set of PROBLEMS to solve, to get the desired result.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 23 mai 2010 - 02:01 .

[Asari]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asari wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk&feature=related

aaaand Elias Keeler and Elias Kelham (Kelhem?) Is not the same person.

Keeler is an Alliance trade negotiator and a drug addict you meet him in front of Flux club in ME1 and the completion of his quest may have some effect on the relations between the Sustems Alliance and the Salarian Union.

As for he video, vvvvverrrry interesting!

Basically it busts down my idea about the meaningful consequenses for the BIG CHOICES. But as the consequences have been unknown and it has even been unknown if there is any impact, at the time of making the decision, the players are approaching the CHOICES as the CHOICES. Only in the end we'll know what decisions brings what... And then, yes, we can go back to Eden Prime and replay the entire trilogy as a set of PROBLEMS to solve, to get the desired result.

I actually meant to quote on Darkhours post, so the Keeler & Kelham part was not a question  But yeah Keeler is an Alliance trade negotiator and he wants drugs and Kelham wants to assassinate anti-humans!

I find the storyline of ME2 as one big problem solving game, its easy enough to just follow the main quest but to choose to not upgrade your ship and skip most of the loyalty missions is just a problem as you might end up dying if you do-which means games over  
But yeah not knowing that, it's still problem solving-but I do agree with players approaching the choices as the choices- but that is why, imo, I find these kind of games so damn fun to play! Going "blindfolded" through these games is awesome!

As for my first playthrough through ME1, which I find rather amusing now as I did not know about the Reapers, at least not until Virmire. But on Noveria, Peak 15. As I spoke with the Rachni I just thought that killing it is the best option, it's too dangerous to live..*Rachni dead* Now I just look back and hope it won't bite me in the ass against the Reapers in the third game. Fighting them might be a problem without the Rachni, who knows?

Anyhow, Problems are great, they force us to think strategically, which makes us feel the intense triumph as we make our way to the solution..which is rather epic! That is why this game also needs "Choice", even though some of the choices might lead to the same goal.

I got this from Anthony from HAWP:

Games offer the player an even more alluring possibility: by being presented with difficult choices with no true “right” answer, we can learn something about ourselves. Not to suggest that Mass Effect 2 didn’t teach me a little about myself — I learned that I’m as bad at feeding fish as I am at picking squad leaders. But those few games I’ve played that gave me real, honest choices will probably stick with me for the rest of my life, even if the games themselves weren’t all that spectacular.


I agree, and the choices of these games might have more impact on us then we think

[Tes4o]

I personally think this is dumb.

[Zulu_DFA]

Tes4o wrote...

I personally think this is dumb.

Why is that?

[Tes4o]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Tes4o wrote...

I personally think this is dumb.

Why is that?

I dunno, I just don't like the idea too much.

[noobzor99]

The way I see it, ME3 will either be an awesome success or a horrible flop. So many of the events in ME2 (On illium alone: rachni envoy, Shiala, Liara, Conrad) left me with a feeling of "ok, now I have to wait for ME3 to see how this pays off"

So either they will pay off... or I will get a ton of emails.

[scorptatious]

How and when do you decide wheather the Quarians go to war or not? If I missed the oppurtunity to do so, what do you think the default would be? Because I'm not sure wheather if I missed that or not.

Modifié par scorptatious, 12 avril 2010 - 04:49 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Tes4o wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Tes4o wrote...

I personally think this is dumb.

Why is that?

I dunno, I just don't like the idea too much.

*shrugs*

noobzor99 wrote...

The way I see it, ME3 will either be an awesome success or a horrible flop. So many of the events in ME2 (On illium alone: rachni envoy, Shiala, Liara, Conrad) left me with a feeling of "ok, now I have to wait for ME3 to see how this pays off"
So either they will pay off... or I will get a ton of emails.

MAIL EFFECT? Horrible! Immersion breaking.

Actually of all the non-mission related ones (those not from TIM, Cerberus command and Anderson) the only one that I'd left there was Chorban's message. And that ME1 quest should have been made into another small subplot: put Chorban in contact with Mordin, since Mordin regrets he missed the opportunity to study the Keepers (Mordin could kinda recruit Chorban & Jalid for STG science wing, or something along these lines). That would be a real nice and meaningful consequense of helping Chorban back in ME1. Instead they brought back that idiot Conrad, and made him glitched at that.

Also this story line if made true, could add some "victory points" (see the OP), for the Grand Final Battle.

scorptatious wrote...

How and when do you decide wheather the Quarians go to war or not? If I missed the oppurtunity to do so, what do you think the default would be? Because I'm not sure wheather if I missed that or not.

Of course, it's up to Quarians to decide, but

There is a dialogue option during Tali's trial (2nd part) to advise the Admiralty board publicly not to go to war. And after the conclusion of the Trial, you can go around the area (in spite of the flashing "end mission" sign) and talk to each of the admirals privately, and again advise them against (or for) the war.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 12 avril 2010 - 08:04 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Bio-Boy 3000 wrote...

The problem is that Bioware has stated in the past (not directly) that creating impossible or punishing game mechanics isn't in the design plans. There will always be a way to solve and situation and have the expectation of a rewarding outcome.

The only way you are going to lose in a future Bioware game is to not finish it.

Well, Shepard's "permanent death" in ME2, although only a half-measure and really hard to get to, is a step in the right direction.

[this isnt my name]

No, choices are meaningless, they change nothing other than a few lines of dialouge, shame realy, I liked Fable 2 where choices changed the world, not enough to fail but enough to make it different, shame they were obvious that one was better than the other though.

[Asari]

this isnt my name wrote...

No, choices are meaningless, they change nothing other than a few lines of dialouge, shame realy, I liked Fable 2 where choices changed the world, not enough to fail but enough to make it different, shame they were obvious that one was better than the other though.

Thats because Fable 2 got their focus on Albion and since the Hero cannot speak in the Fable games then there is no need for any dialouges..I bet if the hero could speak- the dialouges would change as well, depending on the choices.

Choices changes more than just a few lines of dialouges. Unless you decide to walk around in circles forever..!

[Blackcat2010]

I'm thinking that in the end it won't make that much difference apart from a few lines in the possible epilogue.



If you played renegade all the way it basically becomes impossible to win or at least have any "friends" apart form Cerberus. So yes, no big choices.



It would be great if you're choices really counted though, have karma bite Shepard or have Shepard get more than just a pat to the head for a good deed.

So I'm crossing my fingers for BIG CHOICES.

[Zulu_DFA]

Forest03 wrote...

Well, this is certainly an intriguing topic. There are a lot of loose ends to be wrapped up, and I definitely have a lot of predictions; but I'm more concerned with how the story is actually affected by the player's decisions and abilities. Even in ME2, it's not that big of a deal until the very end. Let's face it. 90% of the game is recruitment and loyalty quests. They're not loyal? They die. Yeah? Big freakin' whoop. The galaxy is full of other powerful biotics and one-man-military forces. I'm waiting for Bioware to show us that making a decision on whom to recruit and whom to trust is once again a huge deal, as it was in ME1. The mission on the Krogan breeding facility on Virmire is a fine example. In ME2, it's just way too easy to just recruit everyone and make them happy with their little personal missions. The only one worthy of any note is Legion. His quest in particular, and its outcome, has monumental ramifications. Everyone else, well... Who cares?

What I'm hoping is that ME3 is likely to have a humongous amount of installed data, but relatively short gameplay. The narrative's direction and conclusion may (should!) depend on the following:

1. Survival or destruction of the Council members (ME1)

2. The reprogramming of the Geth and their consequent alliance in the war agains the Reapers and remaining Heretics. (ME2)

3. The choice to destroy the Collector base or destroy it. If the captured technology is used, it should logically create a disruption or weakness in military defenses (be it within Cerberus or the Alliance), just as it had compromised the Normandy. (ME2)

4. Shepard's basic abilities, depending on the chosen "career"/class. If anything else, Bioware should give the player the chance to go on a major solo mission that will be played tactically different by every career type. They are all under-utilized! (Except for Adepts and Vanguards, which are both still way too powerful.)

Did I sound bitter and disappointed in the first paragraph? Well, yeah. I love ME2, and I started my second playthrough this evening. It's just that, looking back now, ME1 is still the better of the two games as far as the story and the player's ability to affect that story are concerned. ME2 is most definitely a narrative bridge, and only when ME3 arrives will we find out if it was truly worth crossing.

This is a great post from another thread:

http://social.biowar.../index/985642/2,

and I just feel like quoting it here.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 23 mai 2010 - 12:43 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

3. The choice to destroy the Collector base or destroy it. If the captured technology is used, it should logically create a disruption or weakness in military defenses (be it within Cerberus or the Alliance), just as it had compromised the Normandy. (ME2)

No.

Im sick of the renegade decision always blowing up in your face. For once let the idealistic paragons get handicaped. Saving the base should either give Shepard or humanity an advantage against the reapers.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lizardviking wrote...

3. The choice to destroy the Collector base or destroy it. If the captured technology is used, it should logically create a disruption or weakness in military defenses (be it within Cerberus or the Alliance), just as it had compromised the Normandy. (ME2)

No.

Im sick of the renegade decision always blowing up in your face. For once let the idealistic paragons get handicaped. Saving the base should either give Shepard or humanity an advantage against the reapers.

I play exclusively as renegade, but I expect something like that to happen.

But, if that's the case, the equally BIG choice from ME1, aka the Council's fate, must come out like this:

Saving the Council = bad (it was tactically silly at the moment already), because the morons are utterly inept.

Losing the Council = good, as the Human-led (or, better yet, all-Human) Council is more decisive, and the arms race between the Systems Alliance and the Turian Hierarchy yields more military spacecraft ready for action.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 23 mai 2010 - 01:04 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

3. The choice to destroy the Collector base or destroy it. If the captured technology is used, it should logically create a disruption or weakness in military defenses (be it within Cerberus or the Alliance), just as it had compromised the Normandy. (ME2)

No.

Im sick of the renegade decision always blowing up in your face. For once let the idealistic paragons get handicaped. Saving the base should either give Shepard or humanity an advantage against the reapers.

I play exclusively as renegade, but I expect something like that to happen.

But, if that's the case, the equally BIG choice from ME1, aka the Council's fate, must come out like this:

Saving the Council = bad (it was tactically silly at the moment already), because the morons are utterly inept.

Losing the Council = good (Human-led or, better yet, all-Human Council) is more decisive, and the arms race between the Systems Alliance and the Turian Hierarchy yields more military spacecraft ready for action.

The tactically stupid thing during the moment was to abandon the DA. You don't leave a force like the geth ships unchecked, they could just turn around when you are about to attack their "god".

"EDIT" also the new council seems to be just as incompetent as the old one.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 23 mai 2010 - 01:07 .

[EffectedByTheMasses]

I think renegade choices that will pay off are saving the collector base, which will provide major points. Also, possibly killing the Rachni Queen, because they may or may not be a threat.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lizardviking wrote...

The tactically stupid thing during the moment was to abandon the DA. You don't leave a force like the geth ships unchecked, they could just turn around when you are about to attack their "god".

"EDIT" also the new council seems to be just as incompetent as the old one.

The Geth ships attacking the DA were already checked. By the DA and her escort. Sending in Alliance ships to engage made them effectively unavailable for the strike at the main target - Sovereign. At most, Hackett had to keep some forces in reserve to hold off the Geth when they are done with the DA or to be ready for the second wave at Sovereign. We get the same video but, realistically, much more Alliance losses should have been portrayed making the victory over Sovereign more narrow.

And the Human-led (all-Human) Council does not seem anything, since they are not seen in the game, except for Udina/Anderson. As it goes, they may be actually happy about Shepard running with Cerberus, they just don't need to show their support publicly.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 23 mai 2010 - 02:22 .

[Homebound]

If we've learned anything from Mass1, its that whatever Shepard says, the Galaxy does it.

Modifié par Just_mike, 23 mai 2010 - 01:43 .

[The Spamming Troll]

i liked the way the choices were laid out in ME1. i hope they go back to that route. i dont think there are any tough choices in ME2 actually. ME1 had ash/kaiden, rachni, and the council. all dramatic and tought choices to make. ofcorse theres all those other small choices like tombs or even giving that stupid preaching hanar money for preaching on the citadel. the sidequest choices were as epic as the main plot choices. the choices you "make" in ME2 are more like one line of dialogue like talis loyalty quest. i dont think anyone cares what shepards opinion on life is. hes a soldier, not a philosopher. thats like asking lebron james to become president.



and why does it always have to be "the hero becomes president?" why cant the hero retire to vermire with miranda and wrex and just make babies? why is it never about the babies?

[MrNose]

Ecael wrote...

Hey Zulu_DFA, I haven't commented on this thread yet (mainly because I can't really respond to all the replies at this point), but I do agree with your idea. It would make all those choices actually matter.

wraith1113 wrote...

So what you're saying is the possibility of failure not just in the game play aspect, but the story itself, makes the experience richer? If so, I agree but I seriously doubt that a trilogy that is already in progress will say for the last iteration that "Hey, based on the decisions you made in the last two games your character could be boned! If you're starting a new character in this game it will be a little more challenging and/or will end up less successful as well!" That sort of thing would have to be announced while explaining the premise of the trilogy early on before the first release. While I'd be interested to see a game like that, I don't think Mass Effect 3 will be it.

No one said that a movie, book or game series absolutely has to have one good ending, nor does that good ending have to be the canon. BioWare could very well set up a situation where 99% of players will see all the bad endings, and the 1% of players who made all the right Paragon/Renegade choices see the exclusive good ending.

The Reapers aren't exactly an easy foe, after all.

I love bad endings, but I don't think that there should be just "ONE" way to win the game.  I would like certain things to matter hugely though.  To me, Shepard encouraging the Quarians to go to war is something which could have the potential to be an auto-loss, since its probably important to have the geth as allies.

[Panda Warlock]

Game I hold in highest regards so far in the matter of choices is "the Witcher". And I think devs should take some notes from that production when making the third game.

I love that game for the choices. Sometimes somethig you can consider a side quest can shape events, without pushing "caution! big choice! in your face. And usually you don't know the consequences for a long time, and when you do, you have to live with them.

Even better since most of them are lose-lose scenarios. Kinda like life. There is no good and bad choice. Not even paragon and renegade-like choice. Most of the time you have to choose a "lesser evil". But which one is it, it's up to player to decide.

I always thought this kind of scenarios would be great for ME2. Second piece of trilogies should be darker, and more morally gray.

I can only hope ME3 will have at least a small percentage of "Wither's" choice-consequences epicness. I'd really love to see galaxy shaping it's fate from big and small choices of persone set in the middle of cataclysm. Commander Shepard.

Modifié par Panda Warlock, 24 mai 2010 - 10:00 .

[Raphael diSanto]

This is quite possibly the best post in this thread.

LookingGlass93 wrote...

At the end of ME3, you will have stopped the Reapers. The most interesting thing will not be that you did so, but HOW.

[Zulu_DFA]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

This is quite possibly the best post in this thread.

LookingGlass93 wrote...

At the end of ME3, you will have stopped the Reapers. The most interesting thing will not be that you did so, but HOW.

Yes, I wonder, HOW?

By clicking the mouse mindlessly until all the husk hordes vanish off the screen, and if all else fails by hitting F9 for quickload?