171 réponses à ce sujet

[Balerion84]

Agreed.

Jalem001 wrote...


Mass Effect 3 should be a reward to fans. I loved Mass Effect 2, but when I play Mass Effect 3 I want to feel the impact of all my decisions. If that means the galaxy crumbling around me because I made the wrong choices, so be it.

And agreed again.

I want to see a big impact of the choices from the first 2 games to bite me in the ass.

Of course, for gamers who pick only ME3, there should be all those choices made by BioWare (basically what BioWare want to be "canon"), but other than that, I want to feel the impact! Even if I lose my first playthrough (god, I hope there'll be at least one bad ending based on the choices from ME1 and ME2)

[Arahlene]

superimposed wrote...

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 - Choices and consequences in a heavily story-driven game.

Mass Effect merely 'transfers'. It's not unique, merely adapted.

I'm not sure what you wish to accomplish with this comparison.

I'll give you story driven, but your actions do not carry over in these games as far as I'm aware (Hey Edwin,
aren't you supposed to be dead?), nor do your choices within the game matter much. Consequences? Like what? Kill someone and the guards come to get you?

BG2 is a sequel, but only in the sense that you are the same person and have some returning party members. Are you suggesting ME should go in this direction?

Don't get me wrong, I loved the BG games but there are some things that ME does better and the continuity and
consequences are examples of that.

[superimposed]

He claimed ME was unique. It's not. It's merely a more evolved form of an already existing system. Unique means more than just 'one of a kind' it means incomparable to anything.



Secondly, they are all arguing that making the game accessible to new players will ruin it without establishing how or why in any way.

[marshalleck]

superimposed wrote...

Secondly, they are all arguing that making the game accessible to new players will ruin it without establishing how or why in any way.

Actually, the idea of the thread is that deeper continuity would make the experience better, and that shouldn't be sacrificed just for the sake of people who have never cared enough about the series to bother with the first two games.

[AntiChri5]

superimposed wrote...

He claimed ME was unique. It's not. It's merely a more evolved form of an already existing system. Unique means more than just 'one of a kind' it means incomparable to anything.

Secondly, they are all arguing that making the game accessible to new players will ruin it without establishing how or why in any way.

Again you are ignoring the fact that i said TRILOGY please explain to me how Baldurs Gate is a Trilogy? And as the other poster pointed out, it is possible for a character to die in one but be in another. Explain how this is continuity?

EDIT: And the only thing i said about uniqueness was that this is a method of storytelling unique to games. Not that it had never been done before.

Modifié par AntiChri5, 04 mars 2010 - 12:38 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

marshalleck wrote...

superimposed wrote...

Secondly, they are all arguing that making the game accessible to new players will ruin it without establishing how or why in any way.

Actually, the idea of the thread is that deeper continuity would make the experience better, and that shouldn't be sacrificed just for the sake of people who have never cared enough about the series to bother with the first two games.

But if you are trying to sell a game, saying that you should buy the first two before purchasing this isn't going to convince many people.

Plus rigidly mainlining a series such a way never works for the benefit, we see this in expansion packs all the time.  They are usually cheaper made and they sell less because they target a smaller audience.  You don't have to make story concessions to get ME 3 to work well on its own.  Since ME 2 is selling better than ME 1 just basically on the grounds that it works better as a game is testament to that.  People should play ME 1 first, but it really shouldn't matter as ME 2 is seperate from ME 1.  While the storyline is a continuation it fits on its own.

[TLK Spires]

 you probably stand to make MORE money by more strongly encouraging players to pick up each entry for a more complete experience.

**** just got real.

[superimposed]

marshalleck wrote...

superimposed wrote...

Secondly, they are all arguing that making the game accessible to new players will ruin it without establishing how or why in any way.

Actually, the idea of the thread is that deeper continuity would make the experience better, and that shouldn't be sacrificed just for the sake of people who have never cared enough about the series to bother with the first two games.

No, it's not at all.

They're saying making it accessible to new players will ruin the game. There is no reason why they have to sacrifice continuity for accessibility, but the OP and all the cheer squad keep stating it without establishing it.

Again you are ignoring the fact that i said TRILOGY please explain to me how Baldurs Gate is a
Trilogy? And as the other poster pointed out, it is possible for a
character to die in one but be in another. Explain how this is
continuity?

EDIT: And the only thing i said about uniqueness was
that this is a method of storytelling unique to games. Not that it had
never been done before.

Also, a 'trilogy'? Unique?
"They Hunger" a mod for the original
Half-life was a trilogy.
Starcraft 2 was always going to be a trilogy of
stories.
Halo is a trilogy.

Again, you've failed to establish that it's 'unique'.

Also, you're ignoring my posts.
Please read them again and get back to me both when you've made an
actual point and understood what I've written.

[marshalleck]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

But if you are trying to sell a game, saying that you should buy the first two before purchasing this isn't going to convince many people.

Nobody is suggesting Bioware tell people to not buy the game if they haven't played the first two, and nobody is saying they should intentionally make ME3 so confusing that newcomers (and probably even some returning fans) would be run off. Seriously, although some of the emails from characters in the first game were kind of cute, is that really the depth you're looking forward to in ME3?

"Shepard, we heard you saved the cure to the genophage. We're really happy! Okay bye!"
"Shepard, we heard you don't want us to go to war against the geth. We'll think about it. Okay bye!"
"Shepard, we found out about your decision regarding sensitive Cerberus data. We respect your judgement. Okay bye!"

Come on. Are you really going to argue that this can not or should not be improved in ME3?

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 mars 2010 - 12:51 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

marshalleck wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

But if you are trying to sell a game, saying that you should buy the first two before purchasing this isn't going to convince many people.

Nobody is suggesting Bioware tell people to not buy the game if they haven't played the first two, and nobody is saying they should intentionally make ME3 so confusing that newcomers (and probably even some returning fans) would be run off. Seriously, although some of the emails from characters in the first game were kind of cute, is that really the depth you're looking forward to in ME3?

"Shepard, we heard you saved the cure to the genophage. We're really happy! Okay bye!"
"Shepard, we heard you don't want us to go to war against the geth. We'll think about it. Okay bye!"
"Shepard, we found out about your decision regarding sensitive Cerberus data. We respect your judgement. Okay bye!"

Come on. Are you really going to argue that this can't be improved in ME3?

It can be improved, and I have said that in previous posts, but there are some arguing for a very domineering sequel setup.

EDIT:  To me of course I'd like to have both worlds but if I had to choose I'd go with the realistic option since ME 3 is a stand alone sequel.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 04 mars 2010 - 12:54 .

[AntiChri5]

superimposed wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

superimposed wrote...

Secondly, they are all arguing that making the game accessible to new players will ruin it without establishing how or why in any way.

Actually, the idea of the thread is that deeper continuity would make the experience better, and that shouldn't be sacrificed just for the sake of people who have never cared enough about the series to bother with the first two games.

No, it's not at all.

They're saying making it accessible to new players will ruin the game. There is no reason why they have to sacrifice continuity for accessibility, but the OP and all the cheer squad keep stating it without establishing it.

Again you are ignoring the fact that i said TRILOGY please explain to me how Baldurs Gate is a
Trilogy? And as the other poster pointed out, it is possible for a
character to die in one but be in another. Explain how this is
continuity?

EDIT: And the only thing i said about uniqueness was
that this is a method of storytelling unique to games. Not that it had
never been done before.

Also, a 'trilogy'? Unique?
"They Hunger" a mod for the original
Half-life was a trilogy.
Starcraft 2 was always going to be a trilogy of
stories.
Halo is a trilogy.

Again, you've failed to establish that it's 'unique'.

Also, you're ignoring my posts.
Please read them again and get back to me both when you've made an
actual point and understood what I've written.

None of those games is a decision based RPG. Hell none of those games is an RPG. Point out a trilogy that lets you import nearly as many decisions as Mass Effect? Try reading my post carefully. Did i say a trilogy was unique and had never been done before? No only a moron would say that.

[marshalleck]

AntiChri5 wrote...

None of those games is a decision based RPG. Hell none of those games is an RPG. Point out a trilogy that lets you import nearly as many decisions as Mass Effect? Try reading my post carefully. Did i say a trilogy was unique and had never been done before? No only a moron would say that.

I think you're wasting your time, this superimposed guy can only slay straw men.

[marshalleck]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

It can be improved, and I have said that in previous posts, but there are some arguing for a very domineering sequel setup.

EDIT:  To me of course I'd like to have both worlds but if I had to choose I'd go with the realistic option since ME 3 is a stand alone sequel.

Continuity between books, games, movies, episodes, whatever, is the defining hallmark of a trilogy in any format. It should be prominent. The final chapter is not the time to be attempting to expand the audience. It's time to wrap things up.

I'm not talking about turning ME into a season of Lost, but they need to do better than email.

Basic rule of writing that anyone should learn in grade school. Show the audience, don't tell them. Email just doesn't cut it.

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 mars 2010 - 01:05 .

[Gaddmeister]

marshalleck wrote...

Continuity between books, games, movies, episodes, whatever, is the defining hallmark of a trilogy in any format. It should be prominent. The final chapter is not the time to be attempting to expand the audience. It's time to wrap things up.

I support this idea very much.

edit:
and lol, how did the Baldur's Gate series make it into this topic? It's non-existent when it comes to choice and consequence between the two games. Your level transfers, but that's it. And that's pointless because it'll take you 15 minutes of BG2 to eliminate that xp advantage. So playing BG to just for importing to BG2 is pointless.

I hope ME3 can have some quests that take different paths depending on your decisions in the first two games. Some e-mails are nice every now and then, but I'd like something substantial as well. And I hope that since it's supposed to be the last game the different endings will be more diverse.

Modifié par Gaddmeister, 04 mars 2010 - 01:26 .

[Crowwalker100]

Nicely put OP..

[Onyx Jaguar]

Gaddmeister wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Continuity between books, games, movies, episodes, whatever, is the defining hallmark of a trilogy in any format. It should be prominent. The final chapter is not the time to be attempting to expand the audience. It's time to wrap things up.

I support this idea very much.

edit:
and lol, how did the Baldur's Gate series make it into this topic? It's non-existent when it comes to choice and consequence between the two games. Your level transfers, but that's it. And that's pointless because it'll take you 15 minutes of BG2 to eliminate that xp advantage. So playing BG to just for importing to BG2 is pointless.

I hope ME3 can have some quests that take different paths depending on your decisions in the first two games. Some e-mails are nice every now and then, but I'd like something substantial as well. And I hope that since it's supposed to be the last game the different endings will be more diverse.

Sweet, I can't stand the first Baldur's Gate but kind of like the second.  Am I really not missing out on that much or should I just go with BG 2?

[Nightwriter]

I would argue that anyone who didn't buy games 1 and 2 are already missing out on the true enjoyment of the game anyway.



There's just a lot of stuff in this game that will only mean something to someone who's played it from the beginning.



Newbs will still be able to enjoy the game, just not as much. Past history will be referenced and explained to them rather than experienced. That's all right, but it's in the full experience that the game really shines, and if you're missing out on that, you're missing out on a lot.

[SurfaceBeneath]

As much as I definitely support rewarding players who have invested themselves in the first two games, I feel that a lot of people are preaching the opposite, that those who haven't played the first games should be punished coming into ME3. I find that entirely self defeating and an awful idea. People will come into a series late, and they should be given the opportunity to appreciate the game, though perhaps not by as many degrees, as someone who has played the two games before it and is importing a previous save. I know as a fan it's only natural to want special treatment, but lets not let that special treatment come at the expense of others.

ME3 should be a fulfilling game to anyone who plays it. It should interest people to go back and play the previous 2 titles.

That said, I still am going to argue that Bioware's decisions in ME2 were formed from necessity not from the fear of overwhelming new players. ME3 should prove to be a bit more free a platform for Bioware to really get into the consequences dealio they seem to be building up, but for ME2 they had to keep the game a bit tighter just so the transition into ME3 would work.

Edit: The above post is so full of grammatical errors that I can't be bothered to fix it... overtime nightshift at work sucks

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 04 mars 2010 - 01:49 .

[Weskerr]

As consumers and customers, it is not our job to tell Bioware how to make the most profit. That's their responsibility. If they want to make a crappy cop out, then that's their decision, but they'll certainly pay for it. There is no reason why they can't make ME3 accessible to everyone while at the same time allow fans of the ME series to be rewarded for playing the first two games.

[crimzontearz]

I agree with the OP, people who did not bother with ME1&2 should not be pubished per se but they should not be rewarded like the loyal fans....



people complaining about accessibility sound rather silly to me...suuure, let me pick up a random Anne Rice or LKH book from the middle of the series and wonder why we are confused...

[Gaddmeister]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

As much as I definitely support rewarding players who have invested themselves in the first two games, I feel that a lot of people are preaching the opposite, that those who haven't played the first games should be punished coming into ME3.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. I'd say that if you reward a player who has played the other two games you punish a player who hasn't at the same time. Doesn't it just depend on how you look at it? People who have played ME1&2 will need to be rewarded. There is a need to feel that your choices have had an impact. Otherwise, what's the point?

I think it was fairly well done in ME2 (could have been better though), and I expect nothing less of ME3.

[SurfaceBeneath]

As an Addendum: Players who have not played ME1 and 2 should be rewarded with an amazing game in ME3.



Players who have played the previous titles and transferred their saved games should get an amazing game which resolves their Shepard's storyline and makes it feel like they've had an incredible, and unique, journey.

[superimposed]

AntiChri5 wrote...

superimposed wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

superimposed wrote...

Secondly, they are all arguing that making the game accessible to new players will ruin it without establishing how or why in any way.

Actually, the idea of the thread is that deeper continuity would make the experience better, and that shouldn't be sacrificed just for the sake of people who have never cared enough about the series to bother with the first two games.

No, it's not at all.

They're saying making it accessible to new players will ruin the game. There is no reason why they have to sacrifice continuity for accessibility, but the OP and all the cheer squad keep stating it without establishing it.

Again you are ignoring the fact that i said TRILOGY please explain to me how Baldurs Gate is a
Trilogy? And as the other poster pointed out, it is possible for a
character to die in one but be in another. Explain how this is
continuity?

EDIT: And the only thing i said about uniqueness was
that this is a method of storytelling unique to games. Not that it had
never been done before.

Also, a 'trilogy'? Unique?
"They Hunger" a mod for the original
Half-life was a trilogy.
Starcraft 2 was always going to be a trilogy of
stories.
Halo is a trilogy.

Again, you've failed to establish that it's 'unique'.

Also, you're ignoring my posts.
Please read them again and get back to me both when you've made an
actual point and understood what I've written.

None of those games is a decision based RPG. Hell none of those games is an RPG. Point out a trilogy that lets you import nearly as many decisions as Mass Effect? Try reading my post carefully. Did i say a trilogy was unique and had never been done before? No only a moron would say that.

Then you've never said anything at all.
Choice and Consequence is not unique, story trilogy is not unique. Importing Saves to transfer data is not Unique. ME has merely combined them all. You haven't made a point yet, keep trying.

[kaimanaMM]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

As much as I definitely support rewarding players who have invested themselves in the first two games, I feel that a lot of people are preaching the opposite, that those who haven't played the first games should be punished coming into ME3. I find that entirely self defeating and an awful idea. People will come into a series late, and they should be given the opportunity to appreciate the game, though perhaps not by as many degrees, as someone who has played the two games before it and is importing a previous save. I know as a fan it's only natural to want special treatment, but lets not let that special treatment come at the expense of others.

ME3 should be a fulfilling game to anyone who plays it. It should interest people to go back and play the previous 2 titles.

That said, I still am going to argue that Bioware's decisions in ME2 were formed from necessity not from the fear of overwhelming new players. ME3 should prove to be a bit more free a platform for Bioware to really get into the consequences dealio they seem to be building up, but for ME2 they had to keep the game a bit tighter just so the transition into ME3 would work.

Edit: The above post is so full of grammatical errors that I can't be bothered to fix it... overtime nightshift at work sucks

Grammatical errors or not, this post is spot on in all respects and sums up my feelings quite nicely.

I tip my internet hat to you.

[Nightwriter]

Long time gamers should not be rewarded at the expense or punishment of newbs.



Newbs should not be accommodated at the expense of the long time gamers.