Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

177 Comments

Mass Effect 3: On Galactic Readiness, Infiltrator, and the End of Shepard's Journey

Mass Effect 3 lead writer Mac Walters sits down for a brief chat about BioWare's iOS expansion, new and old characters, and where things go from here.

In less than a month, BioWare's wildly popular Mass Effect sci-fi role-playing series will come to an end. At least, as far as we've come to know it. While Mass Effect will undoubtedly live on in some form or another, the primary trilogy players have immersed themselves in is on the verge of conclusion. The story of Commander Shepard's role in the war against the Reapers will conclude, and the Shepard fans have spent hundreds of hours building into the Paragon or Renegade or something in-between that you yourself willed him or her to become will perhaps ride off into the void of space, never to be heard from again. Or, maybe not.

Dim the lights and cue up that one Boyz II Men song, because it's going to be a bittersweet goodbye.
Dim the lights and cue up that one Boyz II Men song, because it's going to be a bittersweet goodbye.

Whatever the fate of Shepard and crew turns out to be, the end result almost pales in comparison to the journey that's gotten them there. When Mass Effect debuted back in late 2007, it's safe to say that, for as hotly anticipated a game as it was, few could have foreseen the fervent fandom that cropped up around the franchise. From the various DLC offerings to the myriad universe novels that have popped up in the last several years, people seemingly can't get enough of this space-faring world BioWare created. Undoubtedly, going into Mass Effect 3, those who have become particularly attached to their own Shepard are viewing this upcoming conclusion as bittersweet.

For their part, the developers at BioWare and the always convergence-minded folk at EA are doing their damnedest to ensure players have every opportunity to milk Mass Effect 3's story for all it's worth. In addition to another very lengthy single-player campaign, BioWare recently announced the Galaxy at War mode, a four-player cooperative campaign that, while an entirely optional experience separate from the main game, nonetheless entices players to complete it in service of both experiencing another side story in the Mass Effect story line, as well as contributing to a "Galactic Readiness" rating that plays into the single-player campaign's final battle.

And just this week, BioWare announced even more ways to experience the fringes of the Mass Effect 3 story via iOS. One way will be via a new Datapad app, which includes a whole host of codex entries for people to browse through, including detailed histories on the events of the previous two games, as well as some minor integration with your current Mass Effect 3 game. The other is Mass Effect: Infiltrator, a combat-oriented game from IronMonkey Studios that puts you in the role of a Cerberus soldier named Randall Enzo, who has been tasked with hunting down a variety of extraterrestrial species so that his Cerberus overlords can study them. It's a completely separate campaign that focuses almost exclusively on the combat stylings of Mass Effect (as translated through the touch-focused gameplay of an iOS game), and once again, completing this story will factor into your Galactic Readiness rating in the main game, provided you sync the two up with your EA Origin account.

Infiltrator is a completely separate story that nonetheless factors into your Galactic Readiness rating.
Infiltrator is a completely separate story that nonetheless factors into your Galactic Readiness rating.

I saw both of these apps, as well as a 45 minute demo of Mass Effect 3's second mission, during an EA press event just a couple of days ago. Rather than give you a spoiler-heavy blow-by-blow of everything that took place in said demo, I will simply say that its Mars setting made for quite the intense battleground, and a solid introduction for series newcomer James Vega, a hard-ass soldier played surprisingly well (at least in the few scenes I had with him) by Freddie Prinze Jr. Suffice it to say, the action was great, the story took some intriguing twists and turns, and lo and behold, those 45 minutes more or less flew by like mere seconds.

I also had the chance to talk with Mac Walters, the lead writer of Mass Effect 3, about all of the above. Walters was on-hand at the event to unveil both the Infiltrator and Datapad apps, as well as debut a new trailer (which everyone will apparently get to see next week sometime). In talking to Walters, I definitely got the vibe of a man as conflicted as the fanbase. It's understandable, given that he and so many others at BioWare have essentially lived and breathed Mass Effect for years of their lives. Seeing it come to this conclusion has to be both exciting and perhaps just a bit sad.

Still, Walters was nothing if not enthusiastic in talking about the upcoming iOS side ventures, the newcomers to the cast, the unfortunate story leaks that occurred some months back, and what it is, above all else, that he hopes fans take away from the series as a whole.

Giant Bomb: You guys are just about done now, right? Ready for submission?

Mac Walters: Yeah, we're pretty much done right now. We're just waiting to hear back, waiting to make sure nothing's going to stop [the submission process], yeah.

GB: The new iOS stuff is pretty interesting from the perspective of someone who might be interested in trying to wring the most out of the Mass Effect 3 experience possible. How did that stuff come about? Was that something generated internally? Did EA just come to you and say, "Hey, what about if we do this?"

MW: I think a lot of it was generated by wanting to do something like Galaxy at War. It came from Casey Hudson (Ed: Executive Producer of the Mass Effect series). He knew he wanted that sort of immersive experience you could get from doing things like the iOS games, and also incorporating multiplayer as this Galaxy at War mode that we've got. And then after that, it was just about finding out who was interested in helping to bring it about.

GB: In the case of IronMonkey, who also did EA's iOS Dead Space game, what was the process like in terms of putting that together? Is that game something that was written out internally and handed off to them? Was it more of a collaborative process?

MW: From very early on it was Casey, myself, and their team talking about the story. As much as possible when we work with another party like that, we want them to...especially because they were very excited about working with the Mass Effect universe, we were like, "Well, what do you want to do?" And then there will be a list, and we'll say, "Well, you can't do that, and we know we're going to be doing this in Mass Effect 3 so that doesn't work. But how about something like this?" And that's the way it's worked, with the back-and-forth. At key points they'll be like, "Well here's the whole script, take a look and let us know what you think." And we'll go through the process again, but it's really more about letting them solve problems on their own than saying, you know, "This is what you should write for this."

GB: As for the Datapad app, who is that more geared toward? Is that designed to be something of a catch-up tool for newer players with the codex?

MW: Probably the most inclusive thing on the Datapad app is the codex entries, which of course are available in the game. The ones in the game will be tailored to your experience and open up as you play the game. While we wanted to add other ways to access the universe, we didn't want you to necessarily feel like you HAD to have them. They had to be optional, but they also had to feel useful in their own right, and fun, just like the Infiltrator game, which is amazing.

Yeah, James Vega is a bit of a bro-dude blowhard, but Freddie Prinze's performance actually seems pretty good.
Yeah, James Vega is a bit of a bro-dude blowhard, but Freddie Prinze's performance actually seems pretty good.

GB: You've got a number of new characters joining old ones this year, including Freddie Prinze Jr. as James Vega. How did he get involved with the project?

MW: The cool thing with Freddie was that he's actually a huge fan. He's played both Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 two times through each, both Renegade and Paragon. Like, he knows it, he gets it, and he was super excited to be a part of it. You can tell in the performance. He brought James Vega to life in a way that was just incredible.

GB: Another interesting casting choice is G4 and IGN correspondent Jessica Chobot as reporter Diana Allers. It's an especially interesting casting given that you're using her likeness in the game as well as her voice. As you haven't often done actor likenesses in the game previously, what was the inspiration in doing so here?

MW: We don't do it very often, though we did it before with the Miranda Lawson character and Yvonne Strahovski. I think that was something Casey envisioned. He thought she'd be perfect for that role. And it's kind of cool because she is one of those people from the game industry that you recognize. So it's like, "Oh, hey, there's that girl I recognize from TV!"

GB: I guess the potential concern there is that seeing someone you recognize from the TV in that context might pull you out of the experience a bit.

MW: It's something you always have to pay attention to, but I don't think it was ever a real concern. For us, it always comes down to the story first. So it's like, "Hey, this is the character we need you to be," and it's the same with any of the voice actors we get in.

GB: With the introduction of these new characters, not to mention the fact that in Mass Effect 2, depending on what choices you made, there were certain characters that could have lived through to see the conclusion or ended up dead, one can't help but wonder if or how you could potentially bring some of those characters into the Mass Effect 3 story in a meaningful way. Like, were you able to factor those characters into the plot should they have survived? And if so, how did you manage to do that without breaking the flow of the narrative?

MW: The thing we knew we wanted to do, from very early on, was to say, "We're going to tell an amazing story, regardless of whatever choices you've made before." So that was the first thing, tell an amazing story first. But as much as possible, the more important the character was in the past, the more you'd want to see them in Mass Effect 3 as well. So that factored into what level of involvement they would have in this game. If you're looking at bigger characters in Mass Effect 2, they're going to have a bigger role in Mass Effect 3.

And of course, therein lies our challenge. How do we tell these possible stories, maybe even create a mission around a character who may or may not be there. But by and large I think we've done a fantastic job of doing it. I'm really proud of the writers. They've taken that challenge, and it's been a lot of planning and a lot of rewrites [laughs], but I think we've pulled it off. And not even just from the previous games. The idea was to incorporate anything from all of the lore. So we've got characters from the novels coming in, and other people you've probably heard about throughout the Mass Effect universe, they should show up in some form in Mass Effect 3, because we really want to tie up those narrative threads.

GB: What would you say was the biggest overall challenge in writing Mass Effect 3?

MW: Biggest challenge by far was...it was kind of twofold. One, we really wanted to be able to present this game to new players, so we had to go back and ask, "Okay, how do we tell the story in a way that's fun for existing fans, and fun for newcomers." And a lot of times what that means is you have to branch it out, like you've got to tell not necessarily a different story, but tell it in a different way. That was probably one of the initial challenges.

But then also, when you're talking about dealing with fans, how do you tell an amazing story that can branch in so many different ways. I've played through the game like seven times now, and there are still parts of the game I haven't seen, at least not without cheating, you know? There are just huge parts of the game I can't get to yet because it's that massive, it's that expansive. So obviously tracking all that, planning it all out, and dull as it sounds, even just making sure all the logic works. Like oh that person's alive but that person's dead, so we have to account for all of that. And just tying all of that together into one cohesive story that is phenomenal.

Are you ready to see the end of Shepard's journey? Or do you wish it had lasted just a bit longer?
Are you ready to see the end of Shepard's journey? Or do you wish it had lasted just a bit longer?

GB: A while back it was learned that the story of Mass Effect 3 had leaked out onto various Internet forums. How did you guys handle that? Did you ever look at making changes to the story content to try and combat that? Or was it more about just saying, "Forget it, we're not going to let this mess with our plans?"

MW: It was pretty disheartening for the team, and for the writers especially. You know, it's kind of like someone just broke into your house and started reading all your journals. That's pretty much what it felt like. But as far as making adjustments, we haven't done anything. For one thing, the content that went out wasn't really in a form...you still had to piece things together. And some of that stuff had been cut, changed, or whatever. So we couldn't let something like that change what we had set as a course two years ago. So we just dealt with it and kept making the game. It was more about just encouraging everyone that "Hey, what we've made is something fantastic. Don't let anything that you're seeing out of that get you down."

GB: Speaking more on the grander scope of the entire series and its culmination in Mass Effect 3, what's the one thing you most hope players will take away from the overall experience?

MW: I think I want people to feel like they really have lived Shepard's story. And in concluding Shepard's story, that it does feel fulfilling. And in a way that I think nothing else ever has. If you're a fan of Star Wars and that first trilogy when that ended, sure, you felt like you wanted to get back in that universe. But the difference here is that you've lived it, you've experienced it, you've been a part of it. And of course you can go back and play it a different way to see how that turns out.

I just hope that in the end, there are lots of different ways people can talk about their Shepard's story, and how it's different from other people's.

GB: Do you know yet what's next on your plate? Are you head down on Mass Effect content for the foreseeable future, or are you starting to get a sense of what your next project might be?

MW: Right now, one of the things I'm focusing my efforts on is really looking into the future of narrative in games and interactive narrative. The Mass Effect series was always about baby steps, evolving the series a bit at a time. Now, I, and I think it's fair to say a good portion of the leadership team is too, we're thinking in terms of "How do we revolutionize with the next step?" And we're really so early in that process. Our brains are still pretty numb from the time spent on Mass Effect 3. But that's really the thing I'm looking forward to in the future. Sitting back, and soaking it in, saying, "Wow, that's what we made. What's next?"

Alex Navarro on Google+

177 Comments

Avatar image for digital_sin
digital_sin

1896

Forum Posts

5480

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By digital_sin

shut up and take my money!

Avatar image for excellr8
EXCellR8

134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

Edited By EXCellR8

Seems like I just got through playing the first two games. Really exited for the third!

Avatar image for phonicpod
phonicpod

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By phonicpod

@Sooty said:

Fuck mobile tie in games seriously. Should release them on XBLA/PSN/PC so they are actually half fun to play without stupid touch controls.

Oh you mean like Dead Space : Ignition ?

:P

Avatar image for jasondesante
jasondesante

615

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By jasondesante

if they're using characters from the books, I wonder if it's going to have all those story logic errors that the books had....would be a shame I thought they actually put effort into this series lol. Still lookin forward to ME3 but not looking forward to using Origin.

Avatar image for sooty
Sooty

8193

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sooty

@phonicpod said:

@Sooty said:

Fuck mobile tie in games seriously. Should release them on XBLA/PSN/PC so they are actually half fun to play without stupid touch controls.

Oh you mean like Dead Space : Ignition ?

:P

oh jesus christ no not again

what a mistake that thing was!

Avatar image for pweidman
pweidman

2891

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By pweidman

Great job Alex. Fantastic questions asked here imo. Seemed like the Chobot question about the broken immersion was kinda blown off. Using her voice is one thing, but her likeness is especially baffling to me.

Avatar image for nomorehalfmeasuresdoctor
nomorehalfmeasuresdoctor

147

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So who else is probably going to cave in and play some co-op matches. Maybe just for the hell of it or maybe for the sole purpose of watching an artificial meter fill up so my character/teammates gets the endings they deserve. Odd enough seeing how the entire series was supposedly designed to be about character choices and their consequences. It seems kind of unfair to add another useless meter to go along with their bullshit red/blue morality system. Also, are they completely disavowing an "evil" playthrough seeing as those players would have no reason to dabble into any of this nonsense. Regardless, I'll be playing co-op with everything muted so no asshole ruins the game for me.

Unless anyone here wants to join me I'll be getting it on ps3 day 1 message me if you want to play as well.

Avatar image for stryker1121
stryker1121

2178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By stryker1121

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

It's not even an unspoken truth. BioWare came out (in reaction to fan rage regarding the Galaxy at War announcement) and specifically stated that you don't have to touch this Galactic Readiness whositz to get the best ending for the game.

Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Tennmuerti

@Dan_CiTi said:

@cabelhigh said:

@Zippedbinders said:

@cabelhigh said:

@nemt: Yes, of course, Mass Effect 2 certainly didn't improve the clunky combat, obtrusive load times, terrible AI, and so-so writing of the first game. At all.

.... are you being sarcastic? Mass Effect 2 had clunky and unsatisfying combat, similar load times to ME1 (only this time I had to stare at my lobster ship all the time), equally bad AI, and .... well, I guess the writing is on par with the first game. I actually liked that part.

The combat in ME1 was kind of unfinished. If you played biotics heavy, as I did, I used that default pistol THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME and never got a chance to try anything else. That was not fun. ME 2 made the combat more fun with a larger variety of more useful weapons and powers. And, seriously, having my allies shotgun a wall during combat in ME1 was terrible. That never happened in ME2. At least they knew how to shoot.

Exactly. The combat between ME1 and ME2 was a huge jump. I could not stand ME1's while 2's was a lot of fun.

In ME1 I could lock down entire enemy squads and do amazing juggling of Biotic powers to always keep the combat interesting, a well specced player character could be a biotic god. A properly upgraded pistol in ME1 could also output more DPS then any assault rifle.

ME2? Your godly biotic powres? Nowhere, way less options, universal cooldown, joy.

Here's the thing: people who liked RPGs were better at ME1 combat. People who like shooters more enjoyed ME2 more. In general, there are exceptions obviously.

.

@Sgykah said:

Also, a lot of conclusions based on the most recent BioWare game (DAII), come off as hyperbole; I would go so far as calling the people who have commented negatively on ME3 based on DAII as insincere.

How about people who also base their conclusions based on how ME2 turned out, and how ME3 has so far been portrayed. Not just DA2

I really want to address DAII. The story was anything but weak.

Subjective. Plenty of people thought the story was terrible.

The story shines because the event that defined the conclusion of the game had a very powerful effect

Which event is that, seriously? the one where Anders goes OOC and does the stupidest thing ever, or where all your decisions meant shit, or the one where a magick mcguffin was to blame?

As a narrative hook, the device of following your character through time instead of space worked well. I developed an understanding of the Hawke family and what drove them

So what did drive Hawke? Besides the run from the blight, then $, then dealing with shit because of the mcguffin that was found when looking for $.

and more importantly, the main character had real bulk in that his future decisions were in line with his prior ones.

Not really hard where your main choices are: be a dick, be a goody, be neutral wiseass. Tough decisions to keep consistent.

I would also like to argue with people that say DAII's combat was dumbed down. On hard difficulty, the combination of powers from the different character archetypes added an absolutely necessary aspect of tactics that made the gameplay fun and exciting.

I made it through Hard by mashing attack and have the party do their thing. No tactics were necessary.

and it would have received a lot of praise if it had been the product of anyone but BioWare

Not really, plenty of RPGs get major shit from people regardless of developer. Just look at 2 Worlds 2, or Divine Divinity 2.

how you felt after our mage friend did that thing;

I facepalmed.

Avatar image for tadthuggish
TadThuggish

1073

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 41

Edited By TadThuggish

God, I hope this continues to be my favorite current game series, but everything that comes out makes this sound worse and worse.

Avatar image for sgykah
Sgykah

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Sgykah

You bring up some excellent points. I apologize for using inflammatory language (the h word); I'll blame it on my roots as a World of Warcraft forum troll.

I agree with many of your points about DAII. Pressing A over and over again was in fact silly and a pretty big annoyance of mine. Some of the character story lines were not as good as they could have been, and some of the quests were pointlessly painful (you have found X, return it to person with ! over their head; there are bad people in the town at night, kill them). But my argument is that the game was not a terrible game, but an enjoyable one. I still disagree about the difficulty setting: turning up the difficulty did more than make the enemies have more hit points, it turned on the types of things that should be on with any RPG (friendly fire from AoE spells for example), making the higher difficulty legitimately challenging. I continued to pause the game after every hit and every spell to see the AI's reaction and to plan out my next action, an important part of any BioWare RPG I play. In the end, despite minor disagreements, I think we can agree that DAII should not have been released by BioWare, they should be a better developer than that.

My angle is that it wasn't an abomination, but a warning of what could happen if we let it. And, if I understand your argument, you say that it wasn't a great game, but a warning of what could happen if we let it. I just want to stress that it wasn't as terrible as a lot of people make it out to be.

But I think we may disagree on ME2's story and its role at a fundamental level. I'm not bothered by the fact that the story of ME was not advanced in the sequel in a meaningful way, in fact I'm glad they didn't advance the overall story (I'll get to that later). Aside from the gameplay being fun, The story in ME2 was well contained and I cared about each of the characters presented. In addition to the memorable characters (the illusive man really is a fun and complex character) I think the best argument for the story being excellent is that I was struck by the result of my final decision in ME2. I spent a lot of time considering what I was going to do, I really did. When I saw the red planet, I realized I picked the evil choice, and I was fuming angry. This anger at the writers did not resolve until I read the third mass effect novel, and I realized why my decision was evil (not because of me, but because of those around me). This level of complexity is really rare in video games, and knowing that these are the writers putting the story together puts me at ease -- admittedly, I am a little worried for ME3, knowing that Karpyshin was not as involved in the writing. As far as the DLC, I think that Arrival is the best way to handle the biggest problem in trilogy video games. In a trilogy, the second story has a problem that is amplified in video games due to the production cycle. If the story is advanced too far, there will be a pretty high cliff-hanger; this will leave the consumer in a state of high agitation which cannot be sustained for a very long time. Essentially by the time the next game is released, the interest in the game as a whole will be mostly gone. By releasing the biggest connection between ME1 and ME3 as a DLC less than a year before 3, the developers have kept the game fresh in our minds. Aside from all of this, for me, the most exciting thing about BioWare games' stories is the depth in the characters; and ME2 had this in excess of any expectation I ever had. For this reason alone, I'm excited for ME3.

There are many things that did worry me about ME3's development, but following the way the developers responded to Deception, I feel at ease. I really am glad I have no idea who Chobot is, because I could see clearly how she would be a barrier to suspension of disbelief - I actually know the actress who did one of the voices in ME2 and it really harmed my suspension of disbelief. I was initially worried about the Co-op multiplayer, but having seen how it could be implemented and how other developers have done multiplayer well - AC:B, Bioshock 2 - I'm more than a little excited for the addition of multiplayer. I seriously have thought how some BioWare game could be significantly better if there were humans behind the actions of some of my companions; but you are absolutely right in that the demo will shed much needed light on BioWare's implementation.

I just want to take a second and comment on the depth of tactical choices in ME2. I know you didn't bring up anything about the gameplay in ME2, but I feel that it is something that has to be addressed in any serious discussion of ME2. A lot of people say that combat in ME2 was dumbed down, and I have to disagree. Compared to ME1, ME2 combat was significantly better, and it retained a lot of depth. Many misinterpret choice as depth, but this is not true. Having the choice of many armors and many guns is not the same as depth if there is a clear and obvious best choice in all of this variety; there were a lot of choices in the first game, but there was always the obviously better gun. In the second one, they simply said, here is the best gun, we know it, you know it, here you go. This shifted the depth from the sheer number of guns you had to sell when you went to a store, to the effect a gun has on your gameplay (shotgun vs assault rifle vs hand gun vs sniper rifle). More importantly, the differences between the guns within a type was more pronounced (one powerful shot, multiple little shots, more spread, less spread, etc). I personally even liked the power progression better: instead of making it so that you needed many levels so that you could make your powers better in small increments, they made each level more meaningful by giving you more of a leap over the previous level (maybe this could be refined a little more so that it reaches a happier medium - I didn't like being able to progress only at the end of a mission). And the variety of ammo was still there, except this time, you had to choose for the entire party whether you wanted to use one type of ammo or another; a very interesting shift in tactical gameplay (although I like having variety in ammo more).

We may agree, we may disagree, but I want to take this chance to thank you for a very stimulating discussion.

Avatar image for death_unicorn
Death_Unicorn

2879

Forum Posts

12136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

Edited By Death_Unicorn

@stryker1121 said:

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

It's not even an unspoken truth. BioWare came out (in reaction to fan rage regarding the Galaxy at War announcement) and specifically stated that you don't have to touch this Galactic Readiness whositz to get the best ending for the game.

See, the fact that most of the fanbase is up in arms about it shows its a shitty feature. Why support a shitty feature even if it's optional? They could have used that effort to better the story or something.

Avatar image for sgykah
Sgykah

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Sgykah

I think you've missed the point. But I bet you're good at that. Especially considering you said Anders went OOC... Really? You didn't notice the angsty mage thing the entire time you played? Did you miss that part entirely? Did Anders character baffle you the entire time you played the DAO expansion? Were you not listening to the side conversations when he was in your party? Honestly though, I'm not surprised that you would be confused considering your abilities with the english language... well, not so much language, but more simple logic.

I'd put more thought into this response, but really, you don't deserve it.

Ok, maybe a little bit of thought... did you miss the whole part between DAO and DAII where mages are treated like second class citizens? How about the part where not only was your father an apostate, but he was actually raising an apostate (at least one)?

Next time you face palm, can you do the internet a favor and hold two pins at eye position?

Avatar image for sooty
Sooty

8193

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sooty

@Sgykah said:

Next time you face palm, can you do the internet a favor and hold two pins at eye position?

Oh shit.

Avatar image for sgykah
Sgykah

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Sgykah

@Death_Unicorn said:

@stryker1121 said:

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

It's not even an unspoken truth. BioWare came out (in reaction to fan rage regarding the Galaxy at War announcement) and specifically stated that you don't have to touch this Galactic Readiness whositz to get the best ending for the game.

See, the fact that most of the fanbase is up in arms about it shows its a shitty feature. Why support a shitty feature even if it's optional? They could have used that effort to better the story or something.

I think a big push for multiplayer in single player games is the fact that multiplayer, done well, can reduce the loss of revenue from second hand sales. That's why your single player games will continue to include multiplayer. Other options are compelling DLC (hasn't really panned out for anyone other than Rockstar), day one DLC/game passes, or what is rumored about the XBOX720. It's weird, but arguing that single player games shouldn't have multiplayer almost suggests that you're on microsoft's/developers' side on this one.

Avatar image for hailinel
Hailinel

25785

Forum Posts

219681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 28

Edited By Hailinel

@Sgykah said:

I think you've missed the point. But I bet you're good at that. Especially considering you said Anders went OOC... Really? You didn't notice the angsty mage thing the entire time you played? Did you miss that part entirely? Did Anders character baffle you the entire time you played the DAO expansion? Were you not listening to the side conversations when he was in your party? Honestly though, I'm not surprised that you would be confused considering your abilities with the english language... well, not so much language, but more simple logic.

I'd put more thought into this response, but really, you don't deserve it.

Ok, maybe a little bit of thought... did you miss the whole part between DAO and DAII where mages are treated like second class citizens? How about the part where not only was your father an apostate, but he was actually raising an apostate (at least one)?

Next time you face palm, can you do the internet a favor and hold two pins at eye position?

Anders becoming a church bomber was idiotic for two reasons:

1. You spend the game teaching him how the Chantry and templars aren''t just a bunch of assholes.

2. None of your interactions with Anders mean shit in the long run because the player has no affect on what he does. Where the original Dragon Age: Origins would have likely given the player some form of agency over the situation, Dragon Age II forces the player onto a path and little of what the player actually accomplishes means anything in the long run.

Avatar image for death_unicorn
Death_Unicorn

2879

Forum Posts

12136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

Edited By Death_Unicorn

@Sgykah said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

@stryker1121 said:

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

It's not even an unspoken truth. BioWare came out (in reaction to fan rage regarding the Galaxy at War announcement) and specifically stated that you don't have to touch this Galactic Readiness whositz to get the best ending for the game.

See, the fact that most of the fanbase is up in arms about it shows its a shitty feature. Why support a shitty feature even if it's optional? They could have used that effort to better the story or something.

I think a big push for multiplayer in single player games is the fact that multiplayer, done well, can reduce the loss of revenue from second hand sales. That's why your single player games will continue to include multiplayer. Other options are compelling DLC (hasn't really panned out for anyone other than Rockstar), day one DLC/game passes, or what is rumored about the XBOX720. It's weird, but arguing that single player games shouldn't have multiplayer almost suggests that you're on microsoft's/developers' side on this one.

Not really. Yes, I know video games be a business, but I still vote with my dollar. And my dollar says I'll lay down the 60 for any game I consider good. That has been a ton of singleplayer games, so I don't see how pointlessly complaining about multiplayer puts me on the side of big business. Hell, I'm probably enjoying indie games more now anyways.

Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Tennmuerti

@Sgykah said:

I think the best argument for the story being excellent is that I was struck by the result of my final decision in ME2. I spent a lot of time considering what I was going to do, I really did. When I saw the red planet, I realized I picked the evil choice, and I was fuming angry.

Sooo story is great not because of a story element that happened after the decision but because the game artificially let you know if you made the oh so deep good/evil choice by ... colour.

This anger at the writers did not resolve until I read the third mass effect novel, and I realized why my decision was evil (not because of me, but because of those around me).

Your decision in ME2 was actually simply negated by the third book. It's now cannon that no matter what you did, Cerberus salvaged reaper tech. Explosion or no explosion.

As far as the DLC, I think that Arrival is the best way to handle the biggest problem in trilogy video games. In a trilogy, the second story has a problem that is amplified in video games due to the production cycle. If the story is advanced too far, there will be a pretty high cliff-hanger; this will leave the consumer in a state of high agitation which cannot be sustained for a very long time. Essentially by the time the next game is released, the interest in the game as a whole will be mostly gone. By releasing the biggest connection between ME1 and ME3 as a DLC less than a year before 3, the developers have kept the game fresh in our minds.

Except Arrival has no actual impact on story. Regardless of the decision you made or even if you have not played Arrival at all, Reapers don't suddenly arive a few days after ME2. If Arrival did not exist (and in fact does not exist if you didn't buy it) nothing would have changed. There is no bridge, because nothing of effect actually happens.

I'm not bothered by the fact that the story of ME was not advanced in the sequel in a meaningful way, in fact I'm glad they didn't advance the overall story (I'll get to that later).

You did not get to the part how no meaningfull story progression is a good thing.

Many misinterpret choice as depth, but this is not true.

I just want to take a second and comment on the depth of tactical choices in ME2.

Hide behind cover and pop out to shoot. Win game. Wait you are confusing number of choices with depth.

Compared to ME1, ME2 combat was significantly better, and it retained a lot of depth.

I'd say they removed any semblance of depth. Where are the huge number of awesome biotic/tech powers that allow to dominate the battlefield? Where is my option to create a character whose shield are so powerfull they can wade into an enemy squad and soak up everything, where is the heat management that made me think about how to upgrade or use weapons.

Avatar image for deactivated-6050ef4074a17
deactivated-6050ef4074a17

3686

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

GB: What would you say was the biggest overall challenge in writing Mass Effect 3?

MW: Biggest challenge by far was...it was kind of twofold. One, we really wanted to be able to present this game to new players, so we had to go back and ask, "Okay, how do we tell the story in a way that's fun for existing fans, and fun for newcomers." And a lot of times what that means is you have to branch it out, like you've got to tell not necessarily a different story, but tell it in a different way. That was probably one of the initial challenges.

/sigh
 
I don't think anything I've heard about this game has made me more excited. Every single new piece of news I've ever heard on this game makes me worry more and more.

Avatar image for giovanni
GioVANNI

1318

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By GioVANNI

I'm not sure I like the addition of more boring-ass human characters but I still could not be more excited for this game. I could play these games all the way up to 10.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@Hailinel: Actually Origins has actions and decisions the party members make that you can't talk them out of.  Alistair will not remain in the Grey Wardens if Loghain is allowed in.  You cannot talk him out of it.  Anora will not marry the man who killed her father.  You cannot talk her into it.  Wynne will not tolerate you defiling the ashes of Andraste.  Cairidin will not allow the Anvil to be used ever again, Branka will not tolerate it to be destroyed, there's no common ground.  I think people have got used to everyone betraying their own belief system because Commander Shepard tells them to.  You have a pretty idealistic view of the world if you think you should be able to convince people of anything.
 
Anders is two things; a complete zealot for his cause.  You might have taught him that a few Templars and Chantry sisters aren't assholes, but that's not his problem; his problem are that the Circles still exist.  Until they no longer exist, he will not compromise.  I think it's actually a good twist to have him turn the knife, Dragon Age was not meant to be idealistic.  It's meant that, sometimes, no matter what you do, shit is still wretched.  Oh, the other thing Anders is is completely possessed by a demon.  You know how the fiction constantly talks about how you cannot trust a demon whatsoever, and that a demon possessing a mage is the most dangerous thing in the entire breadth of Thedas next to an archdemon?  They weren't fooling.
 
To those who think 'roleplaying' means that NPCs always do what you'd like them to, you need to actually do some tabletop.
Avatar image for sasfalcon119
SASFalcon119

6

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SASFalcon119

Well, Mass Effect is nearly finished.

...Bring on Generals 2!

Avatar image for sgykah
Sgykah

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Sgykah

@Hailinel said:

@Sgykah said:

I think you've missed the point. But I bet you're good at that. Especially considering you said Anders went OOC... Really? You didn't notice the angsty mage thing the entire time you played? Did you miss that part entirely? Did Anders character baffle you the entire time you played the DAO expansion? Were you not listening to the side conversations when he was in your party? Honestly though, I'm not surprised that you would be confused considering your abilities with the english language... well, not so much language, but more simple logic.

I'd put more thought into this response, but really, you don't deserve it.

Ok, maybe a little bit of thought... did you miss the whole part between DAO and DAII where mages are treated like second class citizens? How about the part where not only was your father an apostate, but he was actually raising an apostate (at least one)?

Next time you face palm, can you do the internet a favor and hold two pins at eye position?

Anders becoming a church bomber was idiotic for two reasons:

1. You spend the game teaching him how the Chantry and templars aren''t just a bunch of assholes.

2. None of your interactions with Anders mean shit in the long run because the player has no affect on what he does. Where the original Dragon Age: Origins would have likely given the player some form of agency over the situation, Dragon Age II forces the player onto a path and little of what the player actually accomplishes means anything in the long run.

Excellent point. In case people haven't played DAII, I'm blocking the next stuff out, but it is a central part of my argument. My first counterargument is that I don't feel like Anders ever really bought what I said, he was too set in his ways. Admittedly, that's a weak argument, but it made the game more enjoyable because it took control away from me as a player. I couldn't game the system like I always get to do in video games, I couldn't get the happy ending I always want. In fact, a really good person ended up dying. The type of innocent death that you never want to be responsible for. I felt that this was a bold move and it is the second part of my argument. However, I could completely see the other angle: the writers wanted to write a particular story and they simply gave the player the illusion of choice without ever giving the player real choice.

I don't have a solid fact to back me up when I say the following: I don't think the writers for BioWare are lazy, I think they're pushing the envelope of video games. I know that they could just be lazy, and I'm getting more from the story than I should. That's not a bad thing for me as a video game player, but if BioWare has become lazy under EA, then it will show in the polish they put into future games; and in that case everyone loses. The only thing I have to say in defense of my position is they did the same thing to me in ME2 as far as forcing me to re-evaluate my position.

I got the evil ending in ME2 because I gave the base to The Illusive Man, assuming that he was really interested in getting the best for humanity. But the third novel made it clear that the Illusive Man is in the end just a man with his own petty needs, desires, and grudges.

In the end, I think only time will tell if BioWare has lost some of its magic. I don't think I've seen too much in the promotional material for ME3 to suggest they have, although like I've said before, some of their choices are suspect. Hopefully these choices won't affect the game drastically, but if they do, they'll end up in Activision category for me (a company I refuse to buy video games from).

Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Tennmuerti

@Sgykah said:

I think you've missed the point. But I bet you're good at that.

The first thing you do is insult my inteligence. Smooth.

I think you've missed the point. But I bet you're good at that. Especially considering you said Anders went OOC... Really? You didn't notice the angsty mage thing the entire time you played? Did you miss that part entirely? Did Anders character baffle you the entire time you played the DAO expansion? Were you not listening to the side conversations when he was in your party?

First Andres goes completely OOC compared to the man he was in Awakening. A wise cracking, determined man. Now he became an angsty gay mage. Secondly Anders proceeds to be mercifull towards templars if you so choose, you can channel him towards tolerantion during the entire game. Thirdly he is a meek individual the entire game ... now oops we need conflict, he mans up and has the balls to not only kill hundreds of people (even tho he dislikes killing and suffering), but also die for the cause. Angsty mage.

But whatever, we have the he is posessed excuse.

Honestly though, I'm not surprised that you would be confused considering your abilities with the english language... well, not so much language, but more simple logic.

You forgot to make any actual point in that subtle insult. Either provide concrete example of my of so consistent failure at simple logic or bugger off.

I'd put more thought into this response, but really, you don't deserve it.

Oh no! Random insult, implying i'm of little worth. This stings so much. You win.

Ok, maybe a little bit of thought... did you miss the whole part between DAO and DAII where mages are treated like second class citizens? How about the part where not only was your father an apostate, but he was actually raising an apostate (at least one)?

This has to do what with my running away from the blight and seeking $ ? prologue + act1

This has also nothing to do with story in act2. Hawks rise to be the champion.

That leaves act3 where your decision to either side with the templars affects nothing. Hawks opinion and how he feels about things doesn't mean shit. Anders blows shit up. War between mages and templars is started. Magic item provides excuse for boss. Your father as apostate is never mentioned in relation of morality of mage abuse. You might not even be a mage and your sibling dead. Wait your potential mage sibling actually isn't even in act3 untill the end and again with little to no mention of their stance on mage/templar thing. The only way mage/templar confilt personaly affects Hawke is if he/she is a mage herself. But it does so with less effect to, because you actually don't care about mage rules, youre special.

So again what did drive Hawke?

For the majority of the game, his/her actions had nothing to do with the mage/templar conflict or mistreatment of mages. And the only reason he/she is forced into conflict in act 3 is because they are the champion of Kirkwall.

Next time you face palm, can you do the internet a favor and hold two pins at eye position?

A fourth personal insult?

Really?

That's low dude. I didn't insult you once in presenting my arguments/opinons, didn't seem necessary to my points. Doesn't seem very mature, but hey that's just my opinion.

Avatar image for hailinel
Hailinel

25785

Forum Posts

219681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 28

Edited By Hailinel

@Brodehouse said:

@Hailinel: Actually Origins has actions and decisions the party members make that you can't talk them out of. Alistair will not remain in the Grey Wardens if Loghain is allowed in. You cannot talk him out of it. Anora will not marry the man who killed her father. You cannot talk her into it. Wynne will not tolerate you defiling the ashes of Andraste. Cairidin will not allow the Anvil to be used ever again, Branka will not tolerate it to be destroyed, there's no common ground. I think people have got used to everyone betraying their own belief system because Commander Shepard tells them to. You have a pretty idealistic view of the world if you think you should be able to convince people of anything. Anders is two things; a complete zealot and terrorist for his cause. You might have taught him that a few Templars and Chantry sisters aren't assholes, but that's not his problem; his problem are that the Circles still exist. Until they no longer exist, he will not compromise. I think it's actually a good twist to have him turn the knife, Dragon Age was not meant to be idealistic. It's meant that, sometimes, no matter what you do, shit is still wretched. Oh, the other thing Anders is is completely possessed by a demon. You know how the fiction constantly talks about how you cannot trust a demon whatsoever, and that a demon possessing a mage is the most dangerous thing in the entire breadth of Thedas next to an archdemon? They weren't fooling.

I'm not saying you could talk your party members out of anything in Origins. But you still have more agency in it than you do in Dragon Age II, where no matter what you do, events by and large proceed the exact same way. And of course Dragon Age II wouldn't be idealistic, Origins wasn't an idealistic game. It was rare that I could resolve any conflict without one side getting bitten in the ass somehow. But the point is, even when those people get bitten in the ass, it's because of something that I did, not something that the game did in spite of me. Even if Anders destroying the chantry makes sense from the standponit of his character, that you have no way of directly interfering with his plan in any capacity, and that your only option in the matter is whether or not he lives or dies after he follows through, is counter to the nature of the interactions the player could have with the world in the original game.

Were there bad things that the player couldn't prevent in Dragon Age: Origins? Yes, but there were also events that were either completely preventable, or that could be mitigated to at least an extent. Or you could fuck up entirely and things would go sour. The point is, you had a part to play. Even when Alistair tells you to fuck off and leaves when you recruit Loghain, that's still because you chose to give Loghain that chance.

Avatar image for natesaint
Natesaint

148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Natesaint

3 will be an excellent conclusion to the series. 1 will no doubt remain my favorite in the trilogy, but I am sure 3 will be great. I don't mind gameplay changes or Jessica Chobot or any of that, I just look forward to playing and immersing myself in this game. I feel many have let the "video games are art" debate go to their heads, and many have forgot how to just sit, play, and have a good time with a good/great game. RPG, shooter, whatever. What does it matter? It will be an enjoyable experience.

Avatar image for cavemantom
cavemantom

273

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By cavemantom

"We're going to tell an amazing story, regardless of whatever choices you've made before."

That statement couldn't be further from my expectations for the conclusion to Mass Effect. As far as I was concerned, the choices were the story. Without them, it's a very generic scifi romp that happens to be in a well realized universe. As Reckoning recently demonstrated, 10,000 years of written history don't amount to a hill of beans in a visual and interactive medium. 1,000,000 R. A. Salvatores on 1,000,000 typewriters couldn't convince people that Reckoning was anything but "generic fantasy."

By implying (and occasionally delivering) repercussions for your actions, BioWare has kept up a strong business making average stories feel like great stories via player involvement.

I'm so intensely doubtful that the story they wish to tell through retcons and new characters is going to surpass the dream-team conclusion to ME1 and 2 that I have in my head. Honestly, I must've been deluding myself thinking that they'd invest all the time and money that it would take to present all of the possible outcomes that were set up in the first two games.

It's much cheaper, faster, and easier to decide that a handful of events happened, one way or another, in every player's storyline.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@Hailinel: I agree there are more minor flags in Origins compared to DA2 (DA2 basically only has a few big on-off flags related to your party members), but let's not get hasty; both games are mostly linear and every playthrough will contain the same large beats.  No matter what, you're a Grey Warden, you gathered an army from four areas, you put someone on the throne of Fereldan, and you defeated the archdemon and someone may or may not have died for it.  No matter what, you're Hawke, you found crazy ass lyrium in the Deep Roads, you defeated the arishok, and ended up taking a side in the inciting battle of the Mage-Templar War of 8:37.  In Origins you decided whether you brought the elves or the werewolves, DA2 you decide what Merrill does with the horrible magical mirror, whether Sebastian stays with the Chantry or rules Starkhaven.  The problem with DA2 is it ended before those decisions played out, they're all flags for future things rather than ... you know, having Varric's brother fight with you during the end battle like the golems in Origin.
 
I have read threads from people on this forum complaining that the game forced them to become Grey Wardens... after buying a game about being Grey Wardens.  I'm a DM myself, and I have a player who (intermittently, some days are better than others) shuts down any sort of exciting plot twist that could in any way jeopardize anything remotely related to his character.  It is a complete drama killer.  I consider that not trusting me enough that I'm actually just making the game interesting for him.  Like, we can get mad that you couldn't prevent the Mage-Templar War... but would you play Dragon Age 3 if that was the case?  Wouldn't that be great, if DA2 had some outcome where you stop Anders from his plan, and find a way to force Meredith and Orsino out of their leadership roles for more reasonable people (Cullen and ... I dunno, most of them mages kind of went bonkers)... and then when you carried your save over to DA3 you just got Hawke in a rocking chair outside of his Estate.  "And all was peaceful in the lands.  Hawke lived a long and peaceful life.  The End."
Avatar image for hailinel
Hailinel

25785

Forum Posts

219681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 28

Edited By Hailinel

@Brodehouse said:

@Hailinel: Like, we can get mad that you couldn't prevent the Mage-Templar War... but would you play Dragon Age 3 if that was the case? Wouldn't that be great, if DA2 had some outcome where you stop Anders from his plan, and find a way to force Meredith and Orsino out of their leadership roles for more reasonable people (Cullen and ... I dunno, most of them mages kind of went bonkers)... and then when you carried your save over to DA3 you just got Hawke in a rocking chair outside of his Estate. "And all was peaceful in the lands. Hawke lived a long and peaceful life. The End."

The solution in that case is to make a Dragon Age III that doesn't depend on Dragon Age II ending in a very specific fashion. You know, go have an adventure in Orlais, or turn the focus to another protagonist in some other part of the world. Dragon Age: Origins could end in a variety of ways. Is Alistair king? If you're playing a female warden, do you become his queen? Are either of you dead in the end? Did Alistair tell you to fuck off because you didn't kill Loghain? Did anyone sleep with Morrigan?

All of these elements combine to form a unique ending that don't necessarily need to be made explicit in a future game. There was absolutely no need to write Dragon Age II's story in such a way that all outcomes lead to a Mage/Templar war based on the events that occur in the ending portions of the game. Dragon Age II was spun off from an event that occurs very early in Origins before doing its own thing; it is not dependent on the ending of the previous game to tell its story. If a Mage/Templar war is to be fought in Dragon Age III, there is no need to railroad Hawke through events that trigger it. It could happen any number of ways. The trigger event could have even been in the beginning minutes of Dragon Age III, much like the player obviously had no control over the rise of the darkspawn in Origins. Bioware was all too eager to turn Hawke into a Fantasy Edition Commander Shepard, and in doing so, they wrote Dragon Age II as little more than a bridge into Dragon Age III while going against many of the expected concepts of the original game.

Avatar image for dookysharpgun
Dookysharpgun

622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dookysharpgun

@Sgykah: I wouldn't go as far as to say that, Bioware owned the franchise, the lack of love is their issue now, but I will say that it wasn't an utterly terrible game, it had some merits, they were just buried under a heap of poorly implemented things that should have been caught during testing. The combat that they toted on being so amazing, fresh and fast was kind of boring, but in truth, I just found the idea of the fast paced combat counter-intuitive to the overall elements of the game, insofar as the developers wanted it played one way, but they couldn't quite get it right.

I get what you're saying, and it is true, from a certain point of view, that I, for the most part, agree with. However, I will say that I can understand those people, coming out of Origins only to be greeted by a triple A title that was very, very poor by comparison. I could understand how people, looking at Bioware and their history, could feel more than a little angry about it, and when that happens, you have to allow for a certain amount of leeway, because it is, in a way, a view that has its reasoning based in a certain logic.

See, I have to clarify, I found the story to be a bit of a strange affair. I won't go into why, just that I thought the need for the Collectors was, at best, a bit of a stretch. Now I enjoyed them as an enemy, but they were...plot convenience at best, in my view. I thought some of the characters were excellent, Garrus, Tali, Mordin, Grunt, Thane and Legion being my favourites, as two of them were characters I had a history with, and the rest were interesting and had fun loyalty missions. Even Kasumi was excellent. But as for the rest...Miranda and Jacob...not my cup of tea, Jack...didn't care about, Samara was cool, but underused, Zaeed was totally pointless. The problem was that I felt they overpopulated the character roster, and missed out on some great opportunities to do more with a smaller cast, which they've reverted back to in ME3, which is a positive aspect. I will say that the choices, for me, especially at the end, were not all that hard to make. I also didn't have the advantage of reading the books, so I'm pretty much part of an in-game experience. As for Arrival, I'm going to have to disagree, because Arrival basically voided the need for the collectors in the main story, negating the need for the second game entirely. You could argue that the human reaper was the point...but honestly, I wasn't a fan of that story, and I think that in a way, Bioware regretted that element, as its scarcely been mentioned following the game. I will say that DLC like Lair of the Shadow Broker really expanded on the world, and made ME2 a damn fine game for those two hours I played it, but even then, the elements of ME2 that had let it down still plagued it. See, to me, ME2 felt scare, with a lack of weapons and armour to customise, a lack of exploration that was sorely needed, and very little extra support that wasn't badly designed maps with broken vehicular sections. Shadow Broker actually added a really fun and exciting element to the game, mixing up the gameplay in a way that the original game just hadn't. I thought they'd even bring out DLC like that for Ashley/Kaiden, because it just worked. The ending of ME2 was actually very good for tying up the storyline...that's why I don't understand why Arrival had to exist.

Yeah, the whole Chobot thing should have been handled differently, or at least, her character should have been given some form of major significance that would make us forget about the person behind the voice, but the character model just shot that right in the foot.

My issue with multiplayer stems from how it could be handled. Will I be able to argue a specific strategy in-game with people? Will different choices effect the mission? Or is it a simple corridor shooter with some very light customization options? I'd like to know before it starts, because a lot of people are severely underwhelmed and worried that the funds put into the Co-Op will impact the SP in some unforeseen fashion.

While the core gameplay flow of ME2 was much better than before, the lack of weapons for certain playstyles really wasn't my idea of a good time. Granted, the amount of guns and upgrades in ME1 were insane, but honestly? I didn't mind. Playing RPGs for so long taught me not to be so irritated by too much clutter in my inventory. The sad thing is that ME2 only had 2 pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, submachineguns and sniper rifles throughout the entire campaign. The upgraded version were exaggerated and never much use, and the DLC weapons weren't all that great, so much so that I just couldn't bring myself to buy them. I got the DLC weapon from kasumi, and the collector gun from Zaeed...the Cerberus shotgun, which was an abomination, and the Arc Projector, which was the best damn Heavy Weapon ever. You see, its not so much that I disliked ME2, more that I disliked how the game only gave me a few ways to play it. For every advantage you gained from upgrades, the disadvantage was that the base gun, or one new one, were very poor, only suiting the very basic play styles of what is a highly diverse number of classes in the game. The same can be said for the armour, which was poor, only offering some minor upgrades that really weren't of much use. The upgrade system for the armour was what you needed, but seeing as they were spread throughout the campaign, and in one case, in DLC, it was really a huge backpedal. I also disliked that no matter how powerful my barrier/shield was, I'd still lose it almost immediately, so there was a sense that there was a lot of imbalance, especially when it came to harder difficulties, where a single forgotten upgrade literally made the mission impossible. The power trees...they had issues too, with balance being almost impossible to achieve, because of unequal point accumulation every level up, and while choosing X or Y for the fully upgraded powers was a very interesting idea, I felt that it could have gone into more depth with it, but the max level being 30, you put points into what you knew you'd need, not what would be most tactical, at least that was the case for me, and made me extremely bored, and frustrated, by ME2's core mechanics, which very much seemed watered down, not dumbed down, as some might say. Maybe ME3 will expand on them, I'm hoping it does, because then I'd get to see some interesting mixes of powers. Oh and I also disliked how tech and biotic powers cooled down at the same time, when they'd established in ME1 that they were completely different in origin...but that's just a peeve of mine I feel was put in for 'balance', and as I've stated before, it wasn't a very good game for that. Still, gameplay wise it was a lot better than one, I just missed one's storytelling depth, and exploration, I even enjoyed the Overlord DLC, because it let me view planets, and as someone who enjoys astronomy, I actually got emotional reactions from seeing planets up-close on the surface, it really immersed me in the experience. Maybe I just miss that about ME at times.

I think we may not disagree as much on overviews of points, our tastes are different given our experiences, and that's understandable. I know now what you're trying to say, and I can appreciate that there are plenty of positive points to ME2, and plenty of reasons to look forward to ME3, but I'm waiting for the demo so I can see it for myself, just as a precaution, as I'm threading lightly with this title.

Still, you're welcome for the discussion, thanks for taking time out and replying in that level of detail, it actually helped me see things from another perspective, and while we may not agree, its nice that we didn't rip each other new assholes over this. This is the kind of discussion I come to forums for.

Avatar image for stryker1121
stryker1121

2178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By stryker1121

@Death_Unicorn said:

@Sgykah said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

@stryker1121 said:

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

It's not even an unspoken truth. BioWare came out (in reaction to fan rage regarding the Galaxy at War announcement) and specifically stated that you don't have to touch this Galactic Readiness whositz to get the best ending for the game.

See, the fact that most of the fanbase is up in arms about it shows its a shitty feature. Why support a shitty feature even if it's optional? They could have used that effort to better the story or something.

I think a big push for multiplayer in single player games is the fact that multiplayer, done well, can reduce the loss of revenue from second hand sales. That's why your single player games will continue to include multiplayer. Other options are compelling DLC (hasn't really panned out for anyone other than Rockstar), day one DLC/game passes, or what is rumored about the XBOX720. It's weird, but arguing that single player games shouldn't have multiplayer almost suggests that you're on microsoft's/developers' side on this one.

Not really. Yes, I know video games be a business, but I still vote with my dollar. And my dollar says I'll lay down the 60 for any game I consider good. That has been a ton of singleplayer games, so I don't see how pointlessly complaining about multiplayer puts me on the side of big business. Hell, I'm probably enjoying indie games more now anyways.

There seems to be a segment of that fanbase holding their collective breath about ME3. I'm a little concerned myself. EA/BioWare are so concerned about attracting anyone who's ever played videogames that the core gameplay could get lost in the process. All this extraneous stuff (multiplay, iOS games, in-game options for more story or more combat, etc) that's being talked about makes me wonder if the meat of the game, the campaign, will suffer in the end. Not trying to be reactionary or some BioWare hater, but I did not like the direction ME2 took the series and this final game seems a further slip down the generic TPS slope. Hope I'm wrong.

Avatar image for pattycakes
PattyCakes

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By PattyCakes

@Dookysharpgun: You misspelled a couple words.

Avatar image for herbiebug
HerbieBug

4228

Forum Posts

43

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By HerbieBug

Good interview Alex.  Sadly I can't say the same for the answers you received.  The way Walters' responds throughout this interview makes me even more nervous about the handling of ME3 than I was before.  And I was EXTREMELY concerned before this.  

Avatar image for death_unicorn
Death_Unicorn

2879

Forum Posts

12136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

Edited By Death_Unicorn

@stryker1121 said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

@Sgykah said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

@stryker1121 said:

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

It's not even an unspoken truth. BioWare came out (in reaction to fan rage regarding the Galaxy at War announcement) and specifically stated that you don't have to touch this Galactic Readiness whositz to get the best ending for the game.

See, the fact that most of the fanbase is up in arms about it shows its a shitty feature. Why support a shitty feature even if it's optional? They could have used that effort to better the story or something.

I think a big push for multiplayer in single player games is the fact that multiplayer, done well, can reduce the loss of revenue from second hand sales. That's why your single player games will continue to include multiplayer. Other options are compelling DLC (hasn't really panned out for anyone other than Rockstar), day one DLC/game passes, or what is rumored about the XBOX720. It's weird, but arguing that single player games shouldn't have multiplayer almost suggests that you're on microsoft's/developers' side on this one.

Not really. Yes, I know video games be a business, but I still vote with my dollar. And my dollar says I'll lay down the 60 for any game I consider good. That has been a ton of singleplayer games, so I don't see how pointlessly complaining about multiplayer puts me on the side of big business. Hell, I'm probably enjoying indie games more now anyways.

There seems to be a segment of that fanbase holding their collective breath about ME3. I'm a little concerned myself. EA/BioWare are so concerned about attracting anyone who's ever played videogames that the core gameplay could get lost in the process. All this extraneous stuff (multiplay, iOS games, in-game options for more story or more combat, etc) that's being talked about makes me wonder if the meat of the game, the campaign, will suffer in the end. Not trying to be reactionary or some BioWare hater, but I did not like the direction ME2 took the series and this final game seems a further slip down the generic TPS slope. Hope I'm wrong.

I'm basically in your boat. I really, really hope it's good, I'm just a little worried, is all.

Avatar image for undeadpool
Undeadpool

8418

Forum Posts

10761

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 18

Edited By Undeadpool

@Death_Unicorn: Never, EVER confuse unwillingness to change with die-hard fandom. I think the notion of "The fans hate it! Doesn't that mean it's bad?!" is absolutely, positively off base. "Fans" hated Dragon Age: Origins riiiiiiiight up until a week after it came out. Then suddenly it was the greatest old school RPG of all time. Ditto Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Ditto ME2 for that matter!

Frankly, I take these knee-jerk reactionaries getting pissed off at something as a sign that something's going right. Cause those types are never mad that things look BAD, they're mad that they look DIFFERENT. And yeah, I'm even with you: I'm a touch concerned, but that concern is only born out of how AMAZING the first two Mass Effect games were.

Avatar image for dookysharpgun
Dookysharpgun

622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dookysharpgun

@PattyCakes: thank you? Its ridiculously late here, I'm lucky if I get a coherent sentence out...

Avatar image for stryker1121
stryker1121

2178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By stryker1121

@Undeadpool said:

@Death_Unicorn: Never, EVER confuse unwillingness to change with die-hard fandom. I think the notion of "The fans hate it! Doesn't that mean it's bad?!" is absolutely, positively off base. "Fans" hated Dragon Age: Origins riiiiiiiight up until a week after it came out. Then suddenly it was the greatest old school RPG of all time. Ditto Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Ditto ME2 for that matter!

Frankly, I take these knee-jerk reactionaries getting pissed off at something as a sign that something's going right. Cause those types are never mad that things look BAD, they're mad that they look DIFFERENT. And yeah, I'm even with you: I'm a touch concerned, but that concern is only born out of how AMAZING the first two Mass Effect games were.

That's a pretty good piece of insight right there in BF. To quote Philip J. Fry, "Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." There are few more emotionally unbalanced creatures in the pop culture world than the average gamer, and seeing mutliplay in a beloved single-player franchise drew loads of nerd-rage even before any info was out.

That said, my question has been throughout this entire process, Where is BioWare's head at? Are they trying to draw a shit-ton of new gamers to the franchise by any means possible, or is narrative continuity and an epic trilogy-ending experience the goal? How can they strike a balance between easing in newcomers and giving the entrenched fanbase the kickass capstone of a game they deserve? Games that try to be all things to all people usually have the opposite effect in my experience.

Avatar image for djjoejoe
DJJoeJoe

1433

Forum Posts

508

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 19

Edited By DJJoeJoe

@stryker1121 said:

That said, my question has been throughout this entire process, Where is BioWare's head at? Are they trying to draw a shit-ton of new gamers to the franchise by any means possible, or is narrative continuity and an epic trilogy-ending experience the goal? How can they strike a balance between easing in newcomers and giving the entrenched fanbase the kickass capstone of a game they deserve? Games that try to be all things to all people usually have the opposite effect in my experience.

I don't think it has to be a balance, you can have both. Most larger developers have completely separate multiplayer teams and that allows them to grow their interesting/unique ideas into a competitive field (eg Assassin's Creed) without needing to sit down and think about a "multiplayer-first" game.

Also while I agree that hearing every second word that comes out of bioware be about how ME3 is the game you should start out with if you haven't played the series before, how else do you want them to devote their time. If you have been playing the game thus far chances are nothing they do will really make you change your mind as you if you're going to play ME3, so why even talk about stuff that may interest those people directly when chances are it could actually just make the internet blow up in your face cause you talked about something that needs context (like... everything involved with most games).

Avatar image for death_unicorn
Death_Unicorn

2879

Forum Posts

12136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

Edited By Death_Unicorn

@stryker1121 said:

@Undeadpool said:

@Death_Unicorn: Never, EVER confuse unwillingness to change with die-hard fandom. I think the notion of "The fans hate it! Doesn't that mean it's bad?!" is absolutely, positively off base. "Fans" hated Dragon Age: Origins riiiiiiiight up until a week after it came out. Then suddenly it was the greatest old school RPG of all time. Ditto Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Ditto ME2 for that matter!

Frankly, I take these knee-jerk reactionaries getting pissed off at something as a sign that something's going right. Cause those types are never mad that things look BAD, they're mad that they look DIFFERENT. And yeah, I'm even with you: I'm a touch concerned, but that concern is only born out of how AMAZING the first two Mass Effect games were.

That's a pretty good piece of insight right there in BF. To quote Philip J. Fry, "Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." There are few more emotionally unbalanced creatures in the pop culture world than the average gamer, and seeing mutliplay in a beloved single-player franchise drew loads of nerd-rage even before any info was out.

That said, my question has been throughout this entire process, Where is BioWare's head at? Are they trying to draw a shit-ton of new gamers to the franchise by any means possible, or is narrative continuity and an epic trilogy-ending experience the goal? How can they strike a balance between easing in newcomers and giving the entrenched fanbase the kickass capstone of a game they deserve? Games that try to be all things to all people usually have the opposite effect in my experience.

Yeah, you guys are right.

Avatar image for rocospi
Rocospi

271

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Rocospi

So about the whole "Galactic Readiness" thing...

I'm going to guess it will be kind of like the end of ME2 where if you do a imaginary checklist, then certain bad things wouldn't happen to you or your crew. So what if I don't play the multiplayer or the iOS game? Will some of my people die because my Galatic Readiness score wasn't high enough?

Avatar image for purerok
PureRok

4272

Forum Posts

4226

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By PureRok

@Jimbo said:

"So it's like, "Oh, hey, there's that girl I recognize from TV!""

This is right up there with 'Button-Awesome' in the tenets of RPG design.

Yea, that doesn't work for me since I have no idea who she is.

Avatar image for spacehog
spacehog

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spacehog
@PureRok said:

@Jimbo said:

"So it's like, "Oh, hey, there's that girl I recognize from TV!""

This is right up there with 'Button-Awesome' in the tenets of RPG design.

Yea, that doesn't work for me since I have no idea who she is.

Yeah, I really have no clue who Jessica Chobot is. Even if I did I can't imagine that her being included would ruin the experience. I mean, if you can accept that humanity has made it out of the solar system because we found what is basically a space cannon in Charon, then why can't you accept her as a space journalist. All the rage is delicious however, some of you people could find a million dollars washed up on a beach somewhere, then bitch about all the money being wet. 
Avatar image for undeadpool
Undeadpool

8418

Forum Posts

10761

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 18

Edited By Undeadpool

@stryker1121: Man, if I could tell you that, I wouldn't be on here posting my random thoughts, I'd be collecting a six figure check from EA for predicting the tides of the finicky gamer's mind.

@Death_Unicorn: There's nothing wrong with being cautiously optimistic.

Avatar image for gerhabio
Gerhabio

1996

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By Gerhabio

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

Avatar image for legoslayer
LEGOslayer

25

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By LEGOslayer

After Dragon Age 2 and SWTOR, then the addition of Multiplayer, uninteresting new characters, and other new additions/retained elements from ME2 that suck, I'm flat out not looking forward to this game. Also that gaudy purple stripe advertising Kinect on the box makes me not want to buy the game even more. There really is a no-win situation when it comes to buying the third game. The 360 version has all that Kinect crap. The PS3 version means you can't have a save from ME1, and the PC version means origin.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@LEGOslayer:   
Avatar image for fjor
fjor

540

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By fjor

bioware has a history in ruining games by adding multiplayer (and other shity stuff) .......the original NWN was fukd because of that

Avatar image for jamesisaacs
jamesisaacs

228

Forum Posts

288

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By jamesisaacs

I'd love to just caress Yvonne Strahovski's bare ass with my head.

Avatar image for leebmx
leebmx

2346

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By leebmx

@Balex1908 said:

"And it's kind of cool because she is one of those people from the game industry that you recognize. So it's like, Oh, hey, there's that girl I recognize from TV!"

Also it`s like "Oh hey, here is something that takes you completely out of the game."

She will probably have a small role, but still stuff like that just makes me worried about the future of Bioware.

Yeah it wasn't the most encouraging reply. At first he says 'it i'll be great cos you'll recognise that girl from the internet' and then he's like 'well its all about the acting and the story.' - They can't both be true.

Avatar image for olivaw
Olivaw

1309

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Olivaw

@leebmx said:

@Balex1908 said:

"And it's kind of cool because she is one of those people from the game industry that you recognize. So it's like, Oh, hey, there's that girl I recognize from TV!"

Also it`s like "Oh hey, here is something that takes you completely out of the game."

She will probably have a small role, but still stuff like that just makes me worried about the future of Bioware.

Yeah it wasn't the most encouraging reply. At first he says 'it i'll be great cos you'll recognise that girl from the internet' and then he's like 'well its all about the acting and the story.' - They can't both be true.

I think you guys are reaching here.

I've got my reservations about Mass Effect 3, but this is the sort of thing that the game industry is going to have to get used to sooner or later.

LA Noire had dudes from actual television shows in it. Didn't see anyone talking about it breaking immersion.

And really, who the fuck even knows or cares about Jessica Chobot? She works for IGN. The only thing that ever got her any attention was when she licked that PSP.