Interview Mass Effect 3 Mature & Epic

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: BioWare; Mass Effect 2

<p>OXM had <a href="http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=19778" target="_blank">a chat with Bioware's Casey Hudson</a> concerning the Mass Effect series.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="text_article_body"><strong>So should we be expecting something even more mature for Mass Effect 3?</strong><br /> [Laughs] Well, we're not talking too much about Mass Effect 3 right now, but the second story in a trilogy is where you traditionally end up in a fairly dark place. The third story is where you try and bring some fun and lightness back into it. One thing we tried to do with Mass Effect 2 was as well as bringing in the more mature stuff, we also tried to bring in a lot more humour so that we can go to these places without making it an overbearing experience. I think we have a lot more fun this time through characters like Joker and EDI. Mass Effect 3 is going to be the epic conclusion... so, a lot more darkness but also a lot more humour. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>He also reveals the truth about the issue with those pesky consequences to choices you've made in ME1. You know, persistent C&amp;C. Emails and stuff.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="text_article_body"><strong>There's a scene at the very beginning where your Commander Shepherd is interviewed by Miranda and Jacob that's clearly there to determine what happened in everyone's Mass Effect 1 game, but it feels like it got cut short. What happened?</strong><br /> Well, in Mass Effect we track literally hundreds of decisions, and most of them wouldn't make for a very interesting conversation, especially for a new player. A new player wouldn't know Conrad Verner or Gianna Parasini [two incidental characters that feature in both games], so it wouldn't make sense for a new player to be answering questions on events they've never experienced before. <br /><br /> A little known thing about Mass Effect 2 is that while everyone knows about the save game connectivity and how well that works, I think that overshadows the fact that we really designed Mass Effect 2 to be a good entry point for new players. So that's why we don't give all these choices about what's happened before. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>See? It's all about giving new players a good entry point.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/98111-mass-effect-series-interview.html">Gamebanshee</a></p>

 

[Stereotypical Villain]

Re: Mass Effect 3 Mature & Epic

See? It's all about giving new players a good entry point.

That depends entirely on the romance options.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

HEY GUYS THE CHOICES YOU PICKED IN ME1 AND 2 WILL MATTER IN 3 OK WE PROMISE

IT WONT JUST CHANGE A FEW LINES OF DIALOG THIS TIME SERIOUSLY

 

[SuicideBunny]

a lot more darkness but also a lot more humour

sounds like it will be as retarded as dragon age then.

 

[forgotmypasswordagain]

Re: Mass Effect 3 Mature & Epic

<p><span class="text_article_body"><strong>So should we be expecting something even more mature for Mass Effect 3?</strong><br /> [Laughs] Well, we're not talking too much about Mass Effect 3 right now, but the second story in a trilogy is where you traditionally end up in a fairly dark place. The third story is where you try and bring some fun and lightness back into it.

"traditionally"? a tradition has been established because george lucas did it that one time in those lame movies he made like 40 fucking years ago? wtf

 

[Silellak]

HEY GUYS THE CHOICES YOU PICKED IN ME1 AND 2 WILL MATTER IN 3 OK WE PROMISE

IT WONT JUST CHANGE A FEW LINES OF DIALOG THIS TIME SERIOUSLY

As opposed to all those other RPGs where the decisions made in the first game in the series caused direct and serious gameplay consequences in the later games.

 

[Sulimo]

"So yeah, we totally went brainstorming with the crew to decide which features to include. So one of these guys, I believe it was Greg, asks: "What did people actually like about return of the Jedi?" It was silent for a moment, until someone carefully muttered "... I kinda liked the Ewoks." All of a sudden the whole room goes like "YEAH! WE LIKED THEM AS WELL! THEY WERE AWESOME!" But then I went "Wait guys, we can't do Ewoks, George Lucas will sue our pants off."

A short moment of silence followed. someone said "... but what if we make them... different, somehow?" Someone else, can't remember who, shouted "HELL YEAH! FLUFFY PENGUINS ON AN ARCTIC HOTH! FUCK YEAH!" So that's when we decided the final showdown would be on an ice planet, with fluffy pinguins named 'Ewauks'. Get it? Ewok + Great Auk = Ewauk? We spent like 3 hours thinking up that name, so you better like it.

Also, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but the final bossfight will TOTALLY be against a giant Ewauk-shaped reaper. All your Ewauk-party members - Did I mention that? All party members on fake-hoth are Ewauks, the rest are off killing the resurrected Saren that's wreaking havoc in the Citadel - which btw is totally like a DEATHSTAR-LIKE SUPERLASER in ME3 - So like, all your party members are like "Fuck no, we're too scared of the reaper-ewauk, kill it for us. But here's the most awesome part: YOU CAN ACTUALLY SWITCH SIDES AND JOIN THE GIANT REAPER-EWAUK TO KILL ALL THE OTHER EWAUKS! We named that the good ending." - Drew Karpyshyn

 

[Shannow]

HEY GUYS THE CHOICES YOU PICKED IN ME1 AND 2 WILL MATTER IN 3 OK WE PROMISE

IT WONT JUST CHANGE A FEW LINES OF DIALOG THIS TIME SERIOUSLY

As opposed to all those other RPGs where the decisions made in the first game in the series caused direct and serious gameplay consequences in the later games.

Just as those devs had promised before! In contrast to Bioware who made no such promises.

 

[CrimHead]

HEY GUYS THE CHOICES YOU PICKED IN ME1 AND 2 WILL MATTER IN 3 OK WE PROMISE

IT WONT JUST CHANGE A FEW LINES OF DIALOG THIS TIME SERIOUSLY

As opposed to all those other RPGs where the decisions made in the first game in the series caused direct and serious gameplay consequences in the later games.

Apologist detected.

The few games that allow you to transfer your character from the first game to the second didn't hype the shit out of the repercussions of your choices.

 

[FeelTheRads]

As opposed to all those other RPGs where the decisions made in the first game in the series caused direct and serious gameplay consequences in the later games.

Does Mass Effect 2 allows it to import your character with the same stats and so on? No? Then most of the other series that allow to continue with the same character(s) have more consequences that in Mass Effect.

 

[Silellak]

HEY GUYS THE CHOICES YOU PICKED IN ME1 AND 2 WILL MATTER IN 3 OK WE PROMISE

IT WONT JUST CHANGE A FEW LINES OF DIALOG THIS TIME SERIOUSLY

As opposed to all those other RPGs where the decisions made in the first game in the series caused direct and serious gameplay consequences in the later games.

Apologist detected.

The few games that allow you to transfer your character from the first game to the second didn't hype the shit out of the repercussions of your choices.

Hype is irrelevant. If you're going to bitch about a feature that no other game series has, you damn well better be able to point to an example of it being done better elsewhere. The simple ability to import a character with stats and level intact doesn't count; I'm talking about actual influence on the storyline.

ME1's plot influences on ME2 might be superficial at best, but as long as its competition is "nothing at all", I will continue to view it as a positive for the series.

For the record, I never saw Bioware hype how choices in ME1 would impact gameplay in ME2. They said your choices would have consequences, which they did. Just because it doesn't align with the Codex definition of C&C doesn't mean Bioware was less than truthful.

 

[Black]

Hype is irrelevant. If you're going to bitch about a feature that no other game series has, you damn well better be able to point to an example of it being done better elsewhere.

Wizardry.
Now shut the fuck up and bg2 sucks.

 

[Shannow]

I'm having one of my "I make stupid posts"-days.

A shame. I hope you'll be better tomorrow.

 

[Silellak]

I'm having one of my "I make stupid posts"-days.

A shame. I hope you'll be better tomorrow.

 

[Serious_Business]

I'm having one of my "I make stupid posts"-days.

A shame. I hope you'll be better tomorrow.

No. He's pretty much right, no need to be "butthurt" about this. Well except if that's your thing, and I respect that. Point is, not only Bioware thinks their C&C is well done and a great effort from their part, there's also very little competition to debunk that idea. You have to look at it from a wide angle, not just the minor rabid fanbase that you're part of. C&C is pretty sparse and essentially we judge it from ideals that were never accomplished, or on a very small cases. We can all think of a game concept with major C&C but can we think of actual examples? Fallout, Arcanum? Even that isn't all that spectacular, to be honest, although miles ahead Bioware of course. So they will get away with this shit easily, espcially with C&C from different continuing games. And, Wizardy 8? Give me a break, no one heard about this shit. Just this minor effort from their part will be milked all the way to hell for profit, and that's disgusting, true, but then, they'd be stupid not to. Bioware are smart guys, they aren't passionate artists, they are businessmen here to sell you a shit product and to ram it down your throat. If I was making games, I'd do the same thing, and that's the reason I'm not doing games, because I still somewhat think humanity should be spared, a little, but hey, gotta make the dough and buy usless shit and raise uneducated children, this is what life is about

 

[Overweight Manatee]

A little known thing about Mass Effect 2 is that while everyone knows about the save game connectivity and how well that works, I think that overshadows the fact that we really designed Mass Effect 2 to be a good entry point for new players. So that's why we don't give all these choices about what's happened before.

By "Good entry point for new players" he means "The story is so totally unrelated that older players will wonder if they are still fighting the reapers or if the new game is a dating sim."

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Just as those devs had promised before! In contrast to Bioware who made no such promises.

Apologist detected.

The few games that allow you to transfer your character from the first game to the second didn't hype the shit out of the repercussions of your choices.

That's bitching at the developers and marketing, not at the game.

 

[Sceptic]

Hype is irrelevant. If you're going to bitch about a feature that no other game series has, you damn well better be able to point to an example of it being done better elsewhere.

Sorry Silellak, but I'm with Shannow and CrimHead on this. To pick a parallel example: not many (read: a handful of) games do C&C well. DAO claimed to be the second coming of C&C. It is not. It should therefore be mercilessly ridiculed for hyping a feature that is so poorly implemented it might as well not be there. We're not going to cut it some slack by saying "DAO's C&C is shit and a big lie but that's alright because so few other games do C&C". Either do it at least moderately well or don't bother. Same for ME. They hyped the shit out of the consequences carrying over, and I don't buy the excuse of "Codex expected too much". THEY HYPED THE FEATURE TO HELL AND BACK. They went on and on about replayability and how different each experience will be. If this is how they describe minor differences in fluff dialog then they might as well not have bothered.

 

[Donkey Balls]

Haha, Sceptic, you're ridiculous. What a moron!

How about you try reading VD's review of DA:O? Here's an excerpt:

Role-playing (i.e. the ability to make decisions that affect both the player and the world around him) is the strongest and most enjoyable aspect of the game. Dragon Age does a better job of providing these options than any previous Bioware game, in fact any RPG since Arcanum, and rarely misses a chance to present you with an interesting choice to consider. Bold claims need proof, so let's take a moment to analyze these elements in a specific example: the Redcliffe-Urn questline.

See the review for the actual examples.

 

[Silellak]

Hype is irrelevant. If you're going to bitch about a feature that no other game series has, you damn well better be able to point to an example of it being done better elsewhere.

Sorry Silellak, but I'm with Shannow and CrimHead on this. To pick a parallel example: not many (read: a handful of) games do C&C well. DAO claimed to be the second coming of C&C. It is not. It should therefore be mercilessly ridiculed for hyping a feature that is so poorly implemented it might as well not be there. We're not going to cut it some slack by saying "DAO's C&C is shit and a big lie but that's alright because so few other games do C&C". Either do it at least moderately well or don't bother. Same for ME. They hyped the shit out of the consequences carrying over, and I don't buy the excuse of "Codex expected too much". THEY HYPED THE FEATURE TO HELL AND BACK. They went on and on about replayability and how different each experience will be. If this is how they describe minor differences in fluff dialog then they might as well not have bothered.

I don't understand the logic of "do it well or don't bother", as long as the feature doesn't otherwise detract from the game. It's not like it's in any way a bad thing that decisions made in ME1 carried over to ME2. Were the consequences just fluff? Yeah, for the most part. Was it the same as what Bioware hyped? Honestly I don't know, I never read much pre-release hype because - SURPRISE - it's usually all bullshit. Did it take away from the fun of the game? No, not at all. In fact I thought it added a bit to the coherence and believably of the setting to see that even some of the small things I did in the first game mattered, at least as far as the story is concerned.

If you want to ridicule the pre-release hype, go right ahead - I've rarely seen pre-release hype for a mainstream release that wasn't worth ridiculing. I just don't think criticizing the game itself for trying something no other game series has done - at least not on this scale - is worth the effort.

On a tangential note, did Bioware actually claim DA:O was the "second coming" of C&C? I don't remember that at all in what little pre-release stuff I saw or read - I just remember the marketing being so ridiculous I almost didn't buy the game. I find it hard to believe anyone plays a Bioware game these days without knowing what to expect - a storyfag game with some fluff C&C related more to the story and characters than to gameplay. At this point, if Bioware comes out and pimps C&C in a game, I'm not going to expect anything but Bioware's particular brand of C&C. I'm surprised anyone here would do otherwise.

 

[Sceptic]

How about you try reading VD's review of DA:O?

I did. And? I played and finished the game myself, so you'll excuse me if I put what I saw in the game ahead of what someone else claims he saw in the game.

In fact I thought it added a bit to the coherence and believably of the setting to see that even some of the small things I did in the first game mattered, at least as far as the story is concerned.

And this is the core of our disagreement. You are right, it did not actually detract from the game. Did it make me feel as if my choices mattered in anyway way? on the contrary, it made me feel as if my choices, AND THE WHOLE POINT OF IMPORTING THEM, was completely and utterly pointless. THAT is why I have no trouble dissing the game for trying to do this, and why I use the "should have no bothered" argument. Again, same as with DAO: they tried to implement C&C, the game itself (forget the hype) tries so very hard to make you think there WILL be consequences... and then doesn't introduce the consequences it teased me with. Does this detract from the game itself? maybe not. Does it detract from my experience of the game? of course. Should I criticize the game for teasing me with something and then providing an extremely watered down version of the promise? I don't see why I should not, and I don't see why I should praise it for failing to deliver. Had it not promised anything the game would've been just pedestrian, like others before it. But promising then delivering only A tiny fraction of the promise? what a disappointment!

I just don't think criticizing the game itself for trying something no other game series has done - at least not on this scale - is worth the effort.

Maybe we're just seeing it very differently. To me they tried on such a pitifully small scale it's laughable. You killed Wrex? you get another Krogan who has a different dialog but where the outcomes is exactly the same no matter what. Then there's the "they were just lazy" moments, like Conrad talking about having a gun shoved in his face even if you picked the most friendly and paragon option (which, incidentally, did not involve guns shoved in his face). I know we've criticized Bioware for having a vaguely neutral reaction to fit multiple choices, but that was not an invitation to have the reaction blatantly contradict the choices.

On a tangential note, did Bioware actually claim DA:O was the "second coming" of C&C?

There seemed to be two types of marketing going on with DAO: the absurdly over the top trailers, and then the Bioware people talking about the C&C (and the sex).

I find it hard to believe anyone plays a Bioware game these days without knowing what to expect

Just because this is what I expect doesn't mean I'll give Bioware (and btw this attitude is in no way limited to Bioware) a free pass at making a feature sound like something it is not, or that I will forgive the game for going out of its way to set up specific expectations then not meeting them. Either of this I could forgive in a game that does other things really well, but ME and DAO don't.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Then there's the "they were just lazy" moments, like Conrad talking about having a gun shoved in his face even if you picked the most friendly and paragon option (which, incidentally, did not involve guns shoved in his face)

That was a bug.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Conrad_Verner

Regardless of Shepard's choices in the first game (due to a save file import bug), he remembers Shepard putting a gun in his face, even though doing so caused him to renounce the Commander as his hero.

 

[SerratedBiz]

So, since the second part of a trilogy is usually the darkest, ME2 was supposed to bring the darkness hard. But it also included a lot of humor with Joker and EDI. So it was kinda dark but also humorous. On the other hand, the third part, as the conclusion, should be about fun and lightness. So we added a lot of lightness in it, but we also included some dark. In the end it has a lot of darkness and also a lot of humor.

We also decided that decisions made in ME1 should carry over to ME2. We also decided that stuff in ME1 should not play too heavily in ME2 so we don't alienate the newcomers. So, in the end, ME2 has a lot of consequences derived from your decisions in ME1 and also we thought not to include too much from ME1 so you wouldn't feel confused if you hadn't played the first game.

Bioware C&C at its finest.

 

[StrangeCase]

By "Good entry point for new players" he means "The story is so totally unrelated that older players will wonder if they are still fighting the reapers or if the new game is a dating sim."

Yeah, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The Reapers are some of the most poorly implemented villains in recent memory. You could even argue that ME2 did something right by having them take a backseat for most of the game. Unfortunately, the replacement main villains are barely any better. Also, the Reapers take the spotlight again in a plot twist at the very end of the game, and it's... bad. I've never seen a game try so hard to be so horrifying, so grand, so riveting, and fall so hard on its face.

 

[Felix]

Mature Mass blue boxes *yawn*