Mass Effect

[Waldorf and Statler]

Plus the fact that not everybody saved the Queen, so for those who didn't they need to still be able to get the best ending without them.

Why? Are we sure there's some rule that states "must be able to have a perfect ending, even with the Rachni queen dead in ME1"? Maybe possible to get a 90% decent ending, but I don't see any issue in your choices along the way leading to not being able to et a perfect in ME3. Like losing half your crew in ME2. Having Wrex, leader of the Krogans, dead. Having the collector base destroyed. Having a beaten up reporter. Plenty of things could combine to make it somewhat impossible to get a perfect ending in ME3.

 

Because this is a video game developer we're talking about here, and one that doesn't take risks to begin with. How much backlash would you expect there to be if people who didnt skip a stone across the lake in the first game can't beat the game 100%? You can't penalize the people who have played all three games while allowing people who have made brand new characters to beat it 100%. Bioware will probably do something like when you meet the Krogans in ME2. Did Wrex die? Have Wrex's brother or w/e he was receive you. Your entire team in ME2 died? You will obviously not get those that are part of the main crew in ME3, and those few missions involving the ME2 crew will probably have someone else ala Wrex.

 

Bioware isn't about to fuck over the majority of their players. I expect decisions to simply factor into the equation at the end to see how much more work you need to do to save humanity. Just like you could survive the arrival to the collector's base by upgrading your ship with every vital part, but could still make it regardless just with maybe some crew dead.

[deanb]

Yeah I'm talking "You'll still stave off the Reapers regardless, just with some planets dead". As opposed to "Wipe out the Reapers, protect the planets, reverse time and bring everyone back including the protheans, and still make it to the prom, learn french and save the little kid in the tree and homeless man in the alley" if you got all the choices spot on throughout the three games. It would be a bit fucking pointless to have a choice system, and saves that carry across three games, and not have anything in the prior games have any impact on the final outcome. Yes maybe you have Wrex's brother instead since you had Wrex shot in ME1. But Wrex's brother fumbles on the switch for the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator and thus a fleet of reapers gets away and wipes out a few colonies instead of being destroyed there n then.

[Waldorf and Statler]

No it wouldn't be pointless. You can have the decisions playthrough and make shit easier, it doesn't necessarily have to affect whether you can save the galaxy. They can affect the final outcome in many ways, just not preventing you from getting the best ending. Nobody wants to be forced to go back 1-2 games just to be able to get the best ending.

[deanb]

Maybe folks should learn to live with the consequences of their actions?

 

Also aren't people with new characters able to pretty much pick out their choices? So going back isn't required (though recommended). Just seems a bit silly to make it "everyone's a winner" kinda scenario. Somewhat meaningless. "So you've been with us throughout the trilogy, you've lost some friends, you've saved some. You rescued the citadel and the council. You've died and been reborn, you've brainwashed the Geth, saved the collector base, and guess what? Well...". Why have a choice and consequences system, continuous saves, and then not actually have a consequence of the choices of the previous games? Do Bioware really want to take Fable 2's crown of "Most anit-climatic game ending of all time"?

 

Seriously, just completely and utterly fuck Bioware Group for now and eternity if the ending of Mass Effect 3 relies solely upon the actions throughout Mass Effect 3.

[Luftwaffles]

Seriously, just completely and utterly fuck Bioware Group for now and eternity if the ending of Mass Effect 3 relies solely upon the actions throughout Mass Effect 3.

 

I'm just not sure how they're going to do it. They're tried very hard to make the Reapers this unstoppable force throughout ME1 and 2 and I'm honestly not sure how they could possibly make Shepard and humanity/the galaxy defeat them without going completely Deus Ex Machina on us. I'd love to see all the races band together and defeat the Reapers and (maybe) Cerberus, but I can't see that happening in my game where my Shepard did a lot of terrible things to other races in the galaxy.

 

I'm hopeful they'll be able to pull it off, but I'm skeptical too.

[Waldorf and Statler]

We won't know till it comes out. I'm a firm believer that choices and decisions won't affect the big picture but smaller aspects. Making it a personalized story. Decisions that were represented from ME1 to ME2 were shown. Was there much of a change for you having an all-human council? Not really besides a few dialogue choices. Wrex being dead didn't do much besides you not being as friendly with the Krogans when you first come in.

 

I don't expect much from Bioware with their new mentality of "make a blockbuster" and their current headwriter who doesn't play games. They aim to please most people, hence the huge change from ME1 to ME3. Most people want to be able to get a happy ending no matter what. They have a story mode that removes all the hardness from the combat. They're not here to innovate much more past the personalized story throughout 3 games.

 

I'm not sure if I'm expecting too little or you're expecting too much, but realistically I'm sticking with my view instead of hoping they pull something out of their ass that isn't rehashed.

 

 

ME2 first didn't have much of an interactive comic. You were asked questions and you responded. I'm assuming it'll be the same.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Waldorf And Statler

[TheMightyEthan]

360 owners starting a new ME2 character do not get to make any choices at all about what happened in ME1 except who the human councilor is (and the only reason for that is because they done goofed in ME1 and forgot to save that information).

 

But I'm with Dean, I think it would be retarded for your choices in the earlier games not to affect what ultimate outcome you can have. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to get a good ending if you killed the Rachni, I'm just saying it would make sense to not be able to get the best ending (or vice-versa if they wanted to pull a surprise and make saving the Rachni backfire).

[Hot Heart]

I don't expect much from Bioware with their new mentality of "make a blockbuster" and their current headwriter who doesn't play games.

 

If you're referring to Jennifer Hepler then a) she's not involved in the series in any way and B) that whole interview was taken out of context (and was from years ago).

 

On the main topic at hand, I can see why you would want there to be a chance at the best possible ending just from one game but I would be disappointed if so. The Quarians going to war with the Geth at such a critical time would surely have dire consequences, for example.

 

So, yeah, I could see why people might want it that way and that past decisions might just mean extra work on the player's behalf but I wouldn't like to see BioWare chicken out.

[Vargras]

Extended version of the cinematic trailer has been posted. There's a few new (and extended) shots.

[SixTwoSixFour]

Personally, I hope there's no "sunshine and lollypops" ending at all. You're fighting an army of thousands of gigantic battleships and their minions that, only three (in-game) years ago, it took the combined might of the Council and Human fleets to take down ONE. And that was with HEAVY LOSSES. So if you can drive off the Reapers without losing any planets, I will be deeply deeply annoyed. This should be a COSTLY battle. People should die, planets should be ravaged, civilizations should never be the same.

 

I'm doing an ME2 playthrough right now on PS3, and I'm seriously considering intentionally having people die during the suicide mission... because to me, it seems pretty dumb to have everyone survive, as I did on my first playthrough. It robs the story of drama, and it just doesn't make sense- in fights like this, people die. That's just how it is, no one is immortal. Besides, I heard that if you lost a lot of people in ME2, in ME3, that affects Shepard's confidence, and how she behaves, and that sounds incredible to me.

[Vargras]

Personally, I hope there's no "sunshine and lollypops" ending at all. You're fighting an army of thousands of gigantic battleships and their minions that, only three (in-game) years ago, it took the combined might of the Council and Human fleets to take down ONE. And that was with HEAVY LOSSES. So if you can drive off the Reapers without losing any planets, I will be deeply deeply annoyed. This should be a COSTLY battle. People should die, planets should be ravaged, civilizations should never be the same.

 

I'm doing an ME2 playthrough right now on PS3, and I'm seriously considering intentionally having people die during the suicide mission... because to me, it seems pretty dumb to have everyone survive, as I did on my first playthrough. It robs the story of drama, and it just doesn't make sense- in fights like this, people die. That's just how it is, no one is immortal. Besides, I heard that if you lost a lot of people in ME2, in ME3, that affects Shepard's confidence, and how she behaves, and that sounds incredible to me.

 

I know in the ME3 demo, when making a Shep for the single-player portion, you had to pick how many losses there had been. One such choice was 'Numerous', and it apparently had a heavy psychological impact on Shepard.

 

I didn't really see anything come about as a result of that (within the demo, that is), but I'm hoping we do see something happen because of it.

[deanb]

What do Bioware have against London?

 

I think a lot of the difficulty with sort of getting hype for ME3, at least personally, and as I've now identified with the trailer, is the disconnect in scale. In ME1 you fight Saren for pretty much most of it, with Sovereign popping up at the end, but fairly simple to deal with. In ME2 it's the collectors, a big ship, but the collectors themselves just infantry stuff. But with ME3 you're up against fleets of Reapers, space ships. You're but a man with a small squad of people. It's hard to wrap your head around dealing with that in the same way as ME1 and ME2. I guess we can just see how they do it in-game, but trailer/demo wise it's hard to get around it.

 

[Luftwaffles]

I'm doing an ME2 playthrough right now on PS3, and I'm seriously considering intentionally having people die during the suicide mission... because to me, it seems pretty dumb to have everyone survive, as I did on my first playthrough. It robs the story of drama, and it just doesn't make sense- in fights like this, people die. That's just how it is, no one is immortal. Besides, I heard that if you lost a lot of people in ME2, in ME3, that affects Shepard's confidence, and how she behaves, and that sounds incredible to me.

 

I'm doing the same, but I'm doing it via not doing the loyalty missions for anyone I don't like. I am totally okay with Jack and Zaeed dying, and my Shepard has pretty much been a dick to both of them, so I hope that doesn't come back to bite me in the ass in 3 just because Bioware wants it to mess with my Shepard. I never liked them anyway.

 

But I suppose that's getting into far more complex carryover between games than they're planning on doing.

[Waldorf and Statler]

I'm discussing what I expect, not what I want. I don't expect, realistically, for choices in previous game to decide whether the game will end well. You guys keep saying you want this but I don't see much evidence. I'd love it to happen, but don't have my hopes up.

[Hot Heart]

I expect that too, especially with their marketing guys claiming the third part of a trilogy is a great time for newcomers to jump on board; I just wouldn't want to see it. It's a 'war' so I think losses are to be expected; it's more a matter of how severe they are. It would be a bit unfair to make the game unwinnable based on decision in past games...but it would possibly encourage sales of them.

 

Mass Effect 2 had a total fail state so I don't see why ME3 couldn't. Oh, man, imagine something like the ending to Blackadder Goes Forth! Only without the bright side to the ending...

[TheMightyEthan]

I would be shocked if choices in previous games made it impossible to get a "good" ending. I would not be surprised, however, if they merely made it impossible to get the "best" ending.

 

Also, I'm sure ME3 will have some kind of total fail state where you complete the game but still lose to the Reapers, just like ME2 had. I can't imagine that that will be made inevitable by anything done in previous games though (though previous games' decisions may make it harder/easier to avoid).

[TheMightyEthan]

One thing that just occurred to me that they could do if you saved the Rachni that would be badass:

 

Make it so that other races automatically assume the Rachni are evil, and want to wipe them out. Make it possible, but difficult, to prevent a war between the Rachni and the other races. Finally, make it so that if you fail to prevent that war then the galaxy is much weaker than if you had wiped out the Rachni, but if you successfully prevent it the galaxy is much stronger. Basically make the Rachni choice from ME1 high risk/high reward.

[Waldorf and Statler]

That'd be pretty sweet. Hopefully the races could have their priorities straight or Bioware could give a good explanation why they'd need to focus on the rachni when fucking flying gigantic monsters are floating around haha. But I'd like some type of thing like that. Make decisions count, and play your cards right.

[Hot Heart]

Sure, it's an ad for pre-order stuff but I thought it was funny.

[jimmuhpage]

That's pretty cool. I'm getting the Limited Edition anyways, but it's nice to know they still do unnecessary things for the fans.

Also, he tries to cover the online pass code, but then leaves it on the corner, lol.

EDIT: And I don't know how to embed youtube videos...

Thanks Dean Edited February 22, 2012 by jimmuhpage

[TCP]

Oh Garrus, I hope you get your own spinoff.

[TheMightyEthan]

Some kind of open world cop drama, set on the Citadel before he meets Shepard. Like LA Noire.

 

It would be easy as hell to tell when Elcor were lying: "Deceitfully: I was not involved."

[Vargras]

Got another goodie today in multiplayer. Found a Revenant.

 

I'm now running around with two rare weapons on my Soldier, a Revenant and a Carnifex.

[Hot Heart]

Some kind of open world cop drama, set on the Citadel before he meets Shepard. Like LA Noire.

 

It would be easy as hell to tell when Elcor were lying: "Deceitfully: I was not involved."

 

Or during his time as Archangel.

 

"SWEAR TO ME!"

 

Got another goodie today in multiplayer. Found a Revenant.

 

I unlocked a Revenant a while back but was not happy with it at all. It was heavy and didn't really offer much of an advantage over the Avenger I already had (which I think was only an Avenger II). Now the Mattock, that's a hell of a gun. Takes down Assault Troopers with great ease, and very handy for shooting Guardians right through their little slit. Hmm, that sounded a bit dirty...

Edited February 22, 2012 by Hot Heart

[jimmuhpage]

Got another goodie today in multiplayer. Found a Revenant.

 

I'm now running around with two rare weapons on my Soldier, a Revenant and a Carnifex.

 

I unlocked the drell Vanguard last night. Now just the 2 coolest ones left: asari adept and krogan soldier...