Fez, on 12 December 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:
See before ME3 I don't remember that being too prevalent. For ME2, all I remember was all the "Assemble Your Team!!!" ads, and they definitely seemed to be focused on the characters as the driving element. And for ME1, did anyone even know that there would definitely be a sequel when it came out; much less that character importing would be a thing? But then, yes, ME3 did make a big point about how previous choices mattered (although most of them just changed a few lines of dialog here and there; the only really, really big ones would be if Garrus or Tali had died in the SM in ME2).
It was a huge selling point. They mentioned it all the damn time.
It was part and parcel of the whole "big choices that echo across an epic trilogy" thing that was what they were selling the trilogy as.
But my point is, they did. There are plenty of choices in ME1 and ME2, but that didn't preclude ME3 from existing. And you don't have any choice in the very big plot points of ME1 or ME2, the ones comparable to the three from ME3 that I've mentioned. You have to blow up Saren's base at Virmire (so no early Krogan cure), you have to destroy Sovereign, you have to work for Cerberus, and you have to defeat the Collectors. There are no choices there and those are the only setting-altering points from ME1 or ME2 (the things that couldn't have just been glossed over). ME3 could've easily been the same way; lots of choices and variables that affect the narrative in various ways, but none that completely alter the basic foundations of the galaxy. There even could've been lots of different endings that separate enough to preclude an immediate sequel, but so long as there is a set form that the galaxy as a whole is in, its easy enough to set a sequel several hundred years down the road.
And that sequel is coming. And people who made setting-altering choices different from what is by necessity chosen as canon are going to be extremely disappointed. Bioware could've easily ensured that didn't happen and still made an amazing ME3. While people may go back and pick different options in ensuring playthroughs, most people consider their first playthrough to be their own personal canon one; and most people (at least judging by those on the offical forums) attempt the exact same outcomes at those big moments (who could betray Mordin first time through?). If the outcome is going to be the same anyway, what's it matter if there was a choice there are not?
ME1 and ME2 were designed with sequels in mind, thus the choices aren't as big. The end of ME3 is pretty much exactly like the end of Deus Ex. Both give you absolute huge choices about drastically changing the face of the future. They do this because it's the end of the game and you don't have to deal with the consequences, so they go all out. They are not designed with sequels in mind.
But there was a DE2. And people complained about it fudging over the ending(s) of the first game. (though it failed for completely different reasons) The same way people complain about how little your actions from previous games end up mattering in ME2 or ME3. Or they complain about how the open ended nature of who survives the end of ME2 means ME3's team is pathetic.
These things you talk about, glossing over choices you make and the like, these are fault
. They are things people complain about and they are most definitely things Bioware is forced to do because playing out the consequences of big choices is expensive and hard, not undesirable.
Could they do it anyway? Sure. They could do anything they fucking want. They can retcon Commander Sheppard into a biomechanically-enchanced catfish with a lisp. Doesn't make it a good idea and doesn't make it line up with the games that came before or what they wanted to do at the time.
Edited by Shryke, 12 December 2012 - 07:43 PM.