Author
|
Topic: Mass Effect 3 (Read 404750 times)
|
kildorn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5014
|
The choices you make don't have to change the actual larger plot events of the game in order to matter. DA2 was never about what you apparently think it should have been about.
No, they don't have to. They should at least give the impression that they do or could if your goal is to make an interactive story (which has been the goal of pretty much every Bioware story). Especially if the game you are making is a direct sequel to a game that this was a major feature of. They didn't have to do this, and in fact they didn't, which is one of the major reasons DA2 was such a let down compared to DA1 or any other Bioware game. If one of the lead writers of your game thinks gameplay just gets in the way of story, it's not surprising that the story that results is very rigid. "Gameplay" gets in the way of your shitty story just like "choice" does if you're a Bioware writer in 2012. I don't follow you here. If your writers feel their story is complete and linear/proper, you get a rigid story. But that has nothing to do with gameplay, and everything to do with your writers trying to write a book versus interactive fiction. That said, it's really hard to write a series in which the end result can be wildly different, because where the hell do you start the next chapter. DA2 throws this away by having you play someone else somewhere different. Mass Effect would have had issues trying to make an ME2 story where, say, the reaper in ME1 won without making two entirely separate games. That said, I think they've done a pretty solid job of always ending up where they want to while still having shit all over the place reminding you of the impact you've had on people's lives with your choices.
|
|
|
|
Polysorbate80
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2044
|
He snippy little tweet was great, too. Not like she could do anything to soothe their feathers, so might as well fan the flames.
“If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” -Catherine someoneorother
|
“Why the fuck would you ... ?” is like 80% of the conversation with Poly — Chimpy
|
|
|
jakonovski
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4388
|
If I had been in charge of Mass Effect, I'd have the Reapers smash face in ME2 and then ME3 would be spent smuggling the best and brightest into some doomsday vault. The grand finale would be avoiding total extinction and perhaps retaining a glimmer of hope.
|
|
|
|
Rokal
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1652
|
I don't follow you here. If your writers feel their story is complete and linear/proper, you get a rigid story. But that has nothing to do with gameplay, and everything to do with your writers trying to write a book versus interactive fiction.
That said, it's really hard to write a series in which the end result can be wildly different, because where the hell do you start the next chapter. DA2 throws this away by having you play someone else somewhere different. Mass Effect would have had issues trying to make an ME2 story where, say, the reaper in ME1 won without making two entirely separate games. That said, I think they've done a pretty solid job of always ending up where they want to while still having shit all over the place reminding you of the impact you've had on people's lives with your choices.
The sentence that came after explained the full thought " If one of the lead writers of your game thinks gameplay just gets in the way of story, it's not surprising that the story that results is very rigid. "Gameplay" gets in the way of your shitty story just like "choice" does if you're a Bioware writer in 2012." I think ME1 and even ME2 handled it well. The game is asking you to make big decisions related to the main story, and they both remained convincing about those decisions in the end. ME1 asked you throughout the game about how much you you weighed humanity's success against the rest of the species in the galaxy. Killing or saving the Rachni queen didn't actually have any impact on the story in the game, but it felt like it did at the time and it tied back to the choices the main story was giving you. In the end you're given a convincing narrative reason to save either the alien leaders of the citadel or the human leaders that could replace them. ME2 doesn't spend a lot of time dealing with the decisions you made, but it feels like it honored them. Again, it's not necessarily about giving players big choices that have a major impact on the main story. It's about giving a convincing illusion of choice, and the feeling that the narrative is honoring those choices. DA1 did this perfectly. It felt like the story was tailored to your choices: the fate of the dwarven throne, the political battle over Fereldan and the fate of Loghain. It's not until a second playthrough that the illusion is totally shattered, and you see just how much dialogue is reused and how you're led to the exact same scenarios.
|
|
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 12:18:45 PM by Rokal »
|
|
|
|
|
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280
Auto Assault Affectionado
|
And the main story was, what, a minor detail on the side? You don't think that's a problem?
Not at all. It's the backdrop for a character drama. This is not exactly a new thing in most narrative forms.
|
The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT. Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
|
|
|
Rokal
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1652
|
Not at all. It's the backdrop for a character drama. This is not exactly a new thing in most narrative forms.
It doesn't seem like you're remembering DA2 well, as the main story (templars vs. mages in Kirkwall) was definitely not the backdrop. Every 10 minutes the game was asking you to make a decision supporting the mages or the templars, and not for the benefit of character exposition for your party. DA2 did not pull off a character drama well either.
|
|
|
|
kildorn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5014
|
I don't follow you here. If your writers feel their story is complete and linear/proper, you get a rigid story. But that has nothing to do with gameplay, and everything to do with your writers trying to write a book versus interactive fiction.
That said, it's really hard to write a series in which the end result can be wildly different, because where the hell do you start the next chapter. DA2 throws this away by having you play someone else somewhere different. Mass Effect would have had issues trying to make an ME2 story where, say, the reaper in ME1 won without making two entirely separate games. That said, I think they've done a pretty solid job of always ending up where they want to while still having shit all over the place reminding you of the impact you've had on people's lives with your choices.
The sentence that came after explained the full thought " If one of the lead writers of your game thinks gameplay just gets in the way of story, it's not surprising that the story that results is very rigid. "Gameplay" gets in the way of your shitty story just like "choice" does if you're a Bioware writer in 2012." I think ME1 and even ME2 handled it well. The game is asking you to make big decisions related to the main story, and they both remained convincing about those decisions in the end. ME1 asked you throughout the game about how much you you weighed humanity's success against the rest of the species in the galaxy. Killing or saving the Rachni queen didn't actually have any impact on the story in the game, but it felt like it did at the time and it tied back to the choices the main story was giving you. In the end you're given a convincing narrative reason to save either the alien leaders of the citadel or the human leaders that could replace them. ME2 doesn't spend a lot of time dealing with the decisions you made, but it feels like it honored them. Again, it's not necessarily about giving players big choices that have a major impact on the main story. It's about giving a convincing illusion of choice, and the feeling that the narrative is honoring those choices. DA1 did this perfectly. It felt like the story was tailored to your choices: the fate of the dwarven throne, the political battle over Fereldan and the fate of Loghain. It's not until a second playthrough that the illusion is totally shattered, and you see just how much dialogue is reused and how you're led to the exact same scenarios. You're auto assigning a motive of "fuck player choice" to "you know, some people like the story more than the gameplay", which seems absolutely a leap. ME1/2 didn't strike me as having better illusion of choice than DA2. The difference was the scope. ME1/2 you're saving the fucking universe (less so in ME2, which really is an odd trip to assemble random people while some vague group does like two bad things ever and lacks a clear motivation until practically the end of the game), DA1 you're singlehandedly stopping an invasion. DA2 is a story in which you are placed against a backdrop of social unrest/change, and actually playing a drama about your family's loss and danger of magic and it's strain on family bonds. It's not that the choices have less of an impact on the story, it's that your entire story isn't the center of the entire game world. I actually prefer that method, since in the "you are the galaxy's only hope" narrative you have to get creative about why the hell you're the only person who could possibly do this. edit: where is sjofn, we need someone who has played entirely too much Dragon Age in here.
|
|
|
|
tmp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4257
POW! Right in the Kisser!
|
edit: where is sjofn, we need someone who has played entirely too much Dragon Age in here.
Purchasing thongs with pigeons on them.  (well, mugs really but that's not as exciting)
|
|
|
|
Rokal
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1652
|
You're auto assigning a motive of "fuck player choice" to "you know, some people like the story more than the gameplay", which seems absolutely a leap.
It's not that they like story more than gameplay. It's that she thinks the gameplay gets in the way of the story, and that you should be able to skip it. She is singularly focused on telling a story, and not necessary one that meshes well with gameplay. I don't think it's a leap at all to suggest that someone who thinks that way might be more concerned with telling the linear story they want to tell rather than designing a story that works well within the 'branching choices' framework Bioware is/was famous for. "I just want people to be able hear the story I'm trying to tell" is the impression I get from her statement about gameplay vs. story, and it's not a leap to see that linear story conflicting with the branching story the game series was expected to have. I don't think it's simply a matter of scale like you suggest either. DA1 told plenty of smaller stories and gave you choices to make in those that felt significant. If you played a dwarf commoner, for example, you were weighing the future of your poor-caste family and your sister against the reality of putting a tyrant in charge of your community. That story was much more effective for me than anything in DA2, and it's not because it was large-scale. It's because it was told well, and I felt like a part of it.
|
|
|
|
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280
Auto Assault Affectionado
|
I think you're totally misinterpreting what she says.
|
The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT. Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
|
|
|
tmp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4257
POW! Right in the Kisser!
|
It's not that they like story more than gameplay. It's that she thinks the gameplay gets in the way of the story, and that you should be able to skip it. She is singularly focused on telling a story, and not necessary one that meshes well with gameplay. I don't think it's a leap at all to suggest that someone who thinks that way might be more concerned with telling the linear story they want to tell rather than designing a story that works well within the 'branching choices' framework Bioware is/was famous for.
I have no problem with the idea of skip combat button so the experience gets trimmed down to the story, and yet it doesn't make me think linear story is preferable over branching narrative that'd allow the player to explore choices and consequences. In other words yup, it feels like pure leap to me.
|
|
|
|
Stormwaltz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2918
|
Jennifer is a valued, talented employee who has been with BioWare for many years and we hope will be with us for many more. It is awful that a few people have decided to make her a target for hate and threats, going so far as fabricating forum posts and attributing them to her, and singling her out for projects to which she has not contributed (i.e., Jennifer is not even a part of the Mass Effect writing team). All of us at BioWare support and will continue to support Jennifer fully, and are happy to see so many people out there are also supporting her during this difficult time.
- Dr. Ray Muzyka. Co-Founder of BioWare; General Manager, BioWare Label; Senior Vice President, Electronic Arts http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/260/index/9381043/1#9381043
|
Nothing in this post represents the views of my current or previous employers.
"Isn't that just like an elf? Brings a spell to a gun fight."
"Sci-Fi writers don't invent the future, they market it." - Henry Cobb
|
|
|
Nevermore
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4740
|
The writers saying "gameplay sucks, give me less" misses the point that the story provides context for the gameplay, whether that gameplay is shooting things in the face or picking which crew member to tap. You are not writing in a vaccum, you are writing to provide context for interaction. I'd say that more people played Mass Effect for the shooty bits in the context of the story than the did for the story without the shooty bits.
Except what she said was 'I'd like to skip it', which implies that people who like the gameplay don't have to skip it. Coming from someone who's job it is to write the story and who has nothing to do with developing or coding gameplay, I'm really not seeing the problem.
|
Over and out.
|
|
|
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280
Auto Assault Affectionado
|
It's pretty disgusting that it ever got to the point where Dr. Ray had to make that post.
|
The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT. Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
|
|
|
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15189
|
One point floating around somewhere in the reasonable f13 version of this discussion is that what Bioware does well or focuses on actually is characterization, not story.
I mean, the bar for story in CRPGs is remarkably low. Hardly any of them have a story worth talking about. Computer and video games in general haven't done very well with narrative per se, both because I think they don't make a point of hiring writers with a broader imagination of what story is or could be, and because the medium itself is still struggling to think about what a version of narrative that's native to gaming should look like. I'd love to see more CRPGs in particular work with narratives where you aren't out to save the city/world/universe--and there really are some narrative models that would work perfectly well in generalized fantasy and SF settings that don't follow that template.
Bioware does a pretty decent job with characterization, but that's against a backdrop of generic stock characters. I think they're particularly good with companions or secondary characters.
In general, I'm actually sympathetic to the point that "story" absent of "gameplay" (whatever that is) is a foolish way to look at game design. The problem is that "gameplay" means so many things to so many people.
|
|
|
|
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3818
|
One point floating around somewhere in the reasonable f13 version of this discussion is that what Bioware does well or focuses on actually is characterization, not story.
I mean, the bar for story in CRPGs is remarkably low. Hardly any of them have a story worth talking about. Computer and video games in general haven't done very well with narrative per se, both because I think they don't make a point of hiring writers with a broader imagination of what story is or could be, and because the medium itself is still struggling to think about what a version of narrative that's native to gaming should look like. I'd love to see more CRPGs in particular work with narratives where you aren't out to save the city/world/universe--and there really are some narrative models that would work perfectly well in generalized fantasy and SF settings that don't follow that template.
Bioware does a pretty decent job with characterization, but that's against a backdrop of generic stock characters. I think they're particularly good with companions or secondary characters.
In general, I'm actually sympathetic to the point that "story" absent of "gameplay" (whatever that is) is a foolish way to look at game design. The problem is that "gameplay" means so many things to so many people.
Totally. I'm personally getting sick and tired of pressing the A button to advance cutscenes and calling it a meaningful choice. There are games that had more choice made in the goddamn 1970's, but wer're stuck in this big budget game rut. I liked ME2, but I could see the writing on the wall. With the very linear gameplay, and stripping of meaningful choices out of the game. I'm expecting ME3 to have a very hollywood movie type of story, and be very restricted on interactivity except for a few major path branches.
|
 "What I'm saying is you should make friends with a few catasses, they smell funny but they're very helpful." -Calantus makes the best of a smelly situation.
|
|
|
tmp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4257
POW! Right in the Kisser!
|
On another note, nVidia has released new drivers for their graphics card. With some ME3-specific tweaks, including doubled performance for the SLI setups.
|
|
|
|
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286
Truckasaurus Hands
|
Not at all. It's the backdrop for a character drama. This is not exactly a new thing in most narrative forms.
It doesn't seem like you're remembering DA2 well, as the main story (templars vs. mages in Kirkwall) was definitely not the backdrop. Every 10 minutes the game was asking you to make a decision supporting the mages or the templars, and not for the benefit of character exposition for your party. DA2 did not pull off a character drama well either. Um, no, I think you're not remembering it well. All those times you make a decision about templars and mages, it absolutely affects the character exposition in your party. As an example, Anders' path to the end is different depending on if you make mage-friendly choices with him around, making him your friend (you turn into his enabler, basically) versus making templar-friendly choices (he starts to see that maybe being a crazy hardliner isn't the best way but loses control to Justice). Yes, I will spoil this JUST IN CASE there is actually someone in this thread who hasn't played DA2 and cares about spoilers: Honestly, I like both sorts of approaches. I don't need to Save the World Because I Must all the time, but I certainly enjoy saving the world as well. I think there's room in the world for both kinds. Apparently other people don't. (How was that, Kild?)
|
God Save the Horn Players
|
|
|
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11844
|
One point floating around somewhere in the reasonable f13 version of this discussion is that what Bioware does well or focuses on actually is characterization, not story.
While this is true, and we made the point a lot after DAO, ME2 demonstrated that characters can't carry a story on their own without, well, a plot. It took the EA RPG to an illogical extreme and as a result I still have no real idea what the main plot was other than that there were bad aliens which needed to be shot at.
|
"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson "Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
|
|
|
Simond
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6742
|
Um, no, I think you're not remembering it well. All those times you make a decision about templars and mages, it absolutely affects the character exposition in your party. As an example, Anders' path to the end is different depending on if you make mage-friendly choices with him around, making him your friend (you turn into his enabler, basically) versus making templar-friendly choices (he starts to see that maybe being a crazy hardliner isn't the best way but loses control to Justice).
Net result either way: Chantry still gets blown the fuck up, Anders still bugfuck. DA2 still a bad sequel. So the point of all that characterisation and story was...?
|
"You're really a good person, aren't you? So, there's no path for you to take here. Go home. This isn't a place for someone like you."
|
|
|
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286
Truckasaurus Hands
|
Way to miss the point, Simond! You are a rock.
|
God Save the Horn Players
|
|
|
kildorn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5014
|
Um, no, I think you're not remembering it well. All those times you make a decision about templars and mages, it absolutely affects the character exposition in your party. As an example, Anders' path to the end is different depending on if you make mage-friendly choices with him around, making him your friend (you turn into his enabler, basically) versus making templar-friendly choices (he starts to see that maybe being a crazy hardliner isn't the best way but loses control to Justice).
Net result either way: Chantry still gets blown the fuck up, Anders still bugfuck. DA2 still a bad sequel. So the point of all that characterisation and story was...? In ME1, no matter what you do in any choice, the end result is that Sovvy is defeated. All that story telling? The hows and whys, and their consequences. Hell, do any of the endings in DA1 actually drastically alter the end of the game? I'm pretty sure the invading hordes are defeated either way. The story pretty much has to end with either the same basic result or creating a sequel is impossible. You can make a single instance with a branching ending (like say, Deus Ex) because you never have to deal with picking that up later and figuring out what to do with all these drastically different options. It's pretty much the entire reason DX:HR was a prequel, because making a sequel was fucking impossible with how DX1 ends. Mass Effect's drastic end can only happen in 3, because it's the only one where nothing else is expected to come after it (god willing, bioware doesn't plan on a terrible spinoff RTS unless they hire relic and make Homeworld Effect)
|
|
|
|
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280
Auto Assault Affectionado
|
Nah, it will be an MMO.
|
The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT. Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
|
|
|
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286
Truckasaurus Hands
|
Hell, do any of the endings in DA1 actually drastically alter the end of the game? I'm pretty sure the invading hordes are defeated either way.
The main "difference" is in the epilogue cards. I am starting to think that if DA2 had epilogue cards, people would suddenly be a lot less "blerf blargh my choices didn't matter."
|
God Save the Horn Players
|
|
|
tmp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4257
POW! Right in the Kisser!
|
The main "difference" is in the epilogue cards. I am starting to think that if DA2 had epilogue cards, people would suddenly be a lot less "blerf blargh my choices didn't matter."
Pretty much, yup.
|
|
|
|
Kail
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2858
|
The story pretty much has to end with either the same basic result or creating a sequel is impossible. You can make a single instance with a branching ending (like say, Deus Ex) because you never have to deal with picking that up later and figuring out what to do with all these drastically different options. It's pretty much the entire reason DX:HR was a prequel, because making a sequel was fucking impossible with how DX1 ends.
There was a sequel to DX1, though? And it treated the ending the same way Daggerfall did: ALL the endings are canon, even the mutually contradictory ones. Even KotOR danced around this issue, with their "Revan was brave man who saved the galaxy" "No, she was a woman, and she led the sith in destroying it" "Right, I'm sorry, I have a cold." I've always wondered about this mindset. Why is it that you need to accomodate ALL of the endings? Just declare one of them to be canon and move on. Might be weird in something like ME where you're allegedly playing the same character from one game to the next, but really, once the game ends, I'm happy with having saved the galaxy or whatever. If the official ending contradicts the one I got, who cares? I saved the world, what do I care if someone else didn't? Maybe do a spinoff "what if..." DLC or something, like Force Unleashed, but I don't see why you HAVE to pretend that whatever version of the end credits the player got was REAL and therefore more interesting somehow.
|
|
|
|
Mazakiel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 904
|
That was one of the things I liked about Legacy of Kain. They had a canon ending to the first game, and it was not the happy noble sacrifice one.
|
|
|
|
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286
Truckasaurus Hands
|
I've always wondered about this mindset. Why is it that you need to accomodate ALL of the endings? Just declare one of them to be canon and move on.
People flip out when you do that, is why. "Oh God MY choices have all been invalidated I hate you <game company>!" and "Why even HAVE choices if you're not going to RESPECT them?!" That sort of stuff.
|
God Save the Horn Players
|
|
|
kildorn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5014
|
The story pretty much has to end with either the same basic result or creating a sequel is impossible. You can make a single instance with a branching ending (like say, Deus Ex) because you never have to deal with picking that up later and figuring out what to do with all these drastically different options. It's pretty much the entire reason DX:HR was a prequel, because making a sequel was fucking impossible with how DX1 ends.
There was a sequel to DX1, though? And it treated the ending the same way Daggerfall did: ALL the endings are canon, even the mutually contradictory ones. Even KotOR danced around this issue, with their "Revan was brave man who saved the galaxy" "No, she was a woman, and she led the sith in destroying it" "Right, I'm sorry, I have a cold." I've always wondered about this mindset. Why is it that you need to accomodate ALL of the endings? Just declare one of them to be canon and move on. Might be weird in something like ME where you're allegedly playing the same character from one game to the next, but really, once the game ends, I'm happy with having saved the galaxy or whatever. If the official ending contradicts the one I got, who cares? I saved the world, what do I care if someone else didn't? Maybe do a spinoff "what if..." DLC or something, like Force Unleashed, but I don't see why you HAVE to pretend that whatever version of the end credits the player got was REAL and therefore more interesting somehow. DX's sequel essentially said fuck you to all the endings but one. It basically invalidates all your choice and character development and says "no fuck you, this happened" That's like, exactly what people are bitching that Bioware totally intends to do even though they've very specifically gone to pains to not do it. The writers aren't saying "hey, this is how it is, because we're writing a book instead of interactive fiction", but they're also saying "also, we think story is a hugely important part of gaming, hence why we became WRITERS" edit: for me I guess this all boils down to: A writer thinks story is the gripping part of a game for some people. This to me makes perfect sense because if you didn't think the writing was important what would fucking possess you to go into that career.
|
|
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 08:03:49 PM by kildorn »
|
|
|
|
|
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064
|
A particularly rude thing about the reaction has been that the interview took place 6 years ago.
And as others have pointed out, BioWare has made a lot of mileage out of gameplay that involves chatty bits, not just shooty / slashy bits.
|
|
|
|
Kageru
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4549
|
I think it is a point of conflict. Some game designers seem to want to be making movies and are grudgingly forced into putting some game into them. The most obvious being FXIII. The suggestion you can skip game-play entirely and still have a meaningful experience is like a red-flag to people who see their game-play as being diluted by this trend. The fact that some extreme elements on some random message board will go overboard is another thing entirely, neither acceptable, sensible or meaningful.
If you want to tell a deep story write a book or a movie where the players erratic choices don't screw up the narrative (this inspires action mode in ME3 I guess). If you want to have deep story arcs and lots of branching paths create an interactive movie or dating sim style game where you don't have to supply unique game-play for each of those paths, since trying to do so becomes exorbitantly expensive. For a game the writing should be about framing and giving context to the game-play content not an end in itself, long minimally interactive segments with no game-play pay off are just padding.
You can mix them, games have had cut-scenes for ages and ME had some substantial dialog sections, but both can easily detract from the game focus and flow if taken too far. And once the characters are seen as valuable IP in their own rights, and cut scenes make such impressive promotional material, they can steal the focus.
Bioware also have one strike against them with SWTOR where their excessive focus on story-telling led to them adding little novelty in MMO gameplay. With GW2 looking like a counter example where you set out into the world and the story happens in the game (if they can make it work).
|
Is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf? - Simond
|
|
|
Fabricated
Moderator
Posts: 8978
~Living the Dream~
|
I like that we're arguing about stories when video-game writing basically demands either 1) an ending that can completely wrap the story up in case no sequel gets released, or 2) A painfully vague cliffhanger obviously meant for a sequel. And in most RPGs where you can customize your avatar at all, if there's any HINT that the game's world/IP might still be used your avatar always dies or merges with the big bad or whatever the fuck stupid thing that lets the main story arc be resolved so that any future characters you play can't run into them.
The Elder Scrolls does this a lot, either by skipping hundreds of years so your old character is dead, or by ending with "AND HE RETURNED TO HIS HOME PLANET, THEY NEEDED HIM." DX:HR basically disappears Jensen no matter what you do, and the ending where he dies is implied as canon or the preferred ending IMO. DA:O pretty much forces you to either be an asshole, or to nobly sacrifice yourself. Awakenings works just fine if your old avatar died. As far as I know you never see your old avatar in DA2, but then again I never bought DA2 so I've only played maybe 10 minutes of it. KOTOR2, while retconned almost out of existence by TOR pretty much has your Revan literally fly as far away as humanly possible. So much so that no one can even remember if Revan was a he or she.
I guarantee Shepard is going to merge with the reapers and fly them away forever or die finishing them off or something in whatever the canon ending turns out to be.
point being: this isn't Shakespere and games as medium usually demand a lot of hacky writing due to how their IP is usually ran into the ground might be used for sequels/spin-offs/etc.
|
|
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 04:27:52 AM by Fabricated »
|
|
"The world is populated in the main by people who should not exist." - George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Velorath
|
They've said to hold onto your Mass Effect 3 saves when you're done with the game. Even thought ME3 is supposed to be the end of Shepard's story, it would be fairly easy for them to have your Shepard make a cameo appearance in future games if they really wanted to (although it might get tricky for 360 and PS3 gamers once the franchise moves onto the next generation of consoles), or even just to let characters to refer to Shepard by the correct pronoun when talking the guy that saved the Universe from the Reapers. Of course it's also a big universe and there's no reason why a new character would be likely to run into Shepard anyway. A bigger factor is, depending on how different they make the various endings, they might need to move forward in time quite a bit. I guess that would largely depend on the scale of whatever story they're planning to tell next.
|
|
|
|
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064
|
You'll want those ME3 saves for the inevitable DLC.
|
|
|
|
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848
|
I guess that would largely depend on the scale of whatever story they're planning to tell next.
If only BioWare had a studio gaining experience in the production of sci-fi MMOs...
|
Hahahaha! I'm really good at this!
|
|
|
|
 |