87 réponses à ce sujet

[Shotokanguy]

I don't think a single post of yours in this topic makes sense, fchopin.

[SSV Enterprise]

Um, what? Edit the whole game? First, I didn't make those videos. Second, the same guy made both of those videos, and the one for the first game was made before the release of ME2, so he couldn't have been biased.

[TJSolo]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

*sigh* Sometimes I wonder why haters of ME2 are so bent on getting there minority opinion out.

Ok, watch these two videos:





You cannot honestly tell me the writing in the first video is better than in the second.

Appealing to majority by calling opinions you don't like the minority. Do two things; Realize we are all the vocal minority and being in the minority does not discount opinions.

What do videos with mostly renegade cutscenes have to do with story and characters let alone writing?
Whooo he says something funny, this is awesome.
How about learning what plot, story and characters mean then playing both games.
Tell me which is better.

[TheSeventhJedi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Once a month, one poster makes an interesting point in the forums. The rest of the month is **** posts, social posts, repeat posts, and goofing around. When the writers post, the inevitably attract the beard stroking dip****s. So why bother?

I'm glad they're off working on their next project rather than replying to dumb ass posts in the forums.

Hear hear!

[SuperMedbh]

ME1 had a straightforward plot, with a linear narrative. This is fairly typical for genre fiction, and no doubt pleases those who are used to SF genre conventions. As Seinfield once said, "Not that there's anything wrong with that." It's also quite action driven: not in the sense of shooting and such, but rather in the sense of a plot that derives its tension from external conflicts. While there are quite a few side missions, they're not really part of the main plot, and don't detract from that linearity.



ME2 does have a background plot with said linearity, but taken by itself is roughly four missions. What comprises the majority of the game are episodic character driven stories that often derive their main tension from internal conflicts. If you thought the Mordin loyalty mission was about a hostage rescue, you missed the main conflict in that story. While some SF is character driven (Le Guin is a master of the form), it's somewhat more unusual for the genre. That, coupled with a more episodic feeling, is probably what causes discomfit among some.



Why don't we see more writers on this forum? Well, all writers like to "stroke the base", as the saying goes. And having someone say "I love your work!" is a massive ego boost. Conversely, having someone call a year of your life "amateurish" is a bit painful, and there's always the danger of wanting to say something back. That almost never works out (Harlan Ellison seems to make a career of that, but he's Ellison).



I'm reminded of a story a writer told me once about his online response to a critique. The self-appointed critic posted an Amazon review that read something like "This is the fourth book of so and so's I've read, and he has yet to write anything good". To which the writer wrote back "What sort of idiot would buy four books from someone whose writing they hate? I mean, maybe two, but four?" Funny, sure, but then that reader went out of his way to post negative reviews of the writer's work on practically every blog/review site. One wonders where he got the spare time, but that didn't change the irritation factor (fwiw, said writer continues to do very well for himself, fan stalkers notwithstanding). In short, never underestimate the power of "nerd rage"-- and sometimes it's easier just to avoid a situation rather than expose oneself to the temptation of the clever put down.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

SP One Nineteen wrote...

Lets just hope they really care about what the fans have to say about this. Forums are great places for game developers/writers/etc to get some insight into what the people that buy their product want.

True. If they can see through the whining and the BS. There are thoughtful critiques here but there are lots of bellyaching and b!tching. 

[SuperMedbh]

I do think they pay attention. The Garrus and Tali fanbase probably ensured that those characters returned in ME2, for example. The complaints about the Mako probably led to its disappearance. I do think positive threads (like the fan threads) are more likely to have an impact, simply because it's easier to give them more of something popular than to remove something and figure out what to replace it with.

[Ecael]

fchopin wrote...

kregano wrote...
And this is why if I was a Bioware writer, I would not make my presence known.

I tell it how it is, if the writers don’t like it to bad.
 
I gave them top marks for ME1 but ME2 the writing is very amateurish, if they want to hear lies and say so then i will lie.
 
If you like the game then enjoy, i don’t so i say what is my opinion.

Unfortunately, the writers will then adopt the same attitude towards the vocal playerbase -- "if the players don't like it, too bad". Enough cynicism/criticism (or even too much 'constructive' criticism) will simply make them dismiss us entirely. After all, they get paid for what they do as professionals, which makes their ideas much more valid. Chasing them away only ensures they'll stick to their ideas.

Instead of being gamers to them, we become just "gamers" instead.

Modifié par Ecael, 27 avril 2010 - 01:10 .

[ThePatriot101]

I see these threads and I don't understand why people make a fuss.



Gimme specific examples WHY the writers flopped. And don't give me a clip and say, "Doesn't it sound stupid?" Give me specific aspects and tell me who managed to do it better than the ME writers.

[Fro_McJoe]

I do agree, ME1 established a very interesting and (for the outrageous things sci fi comes up with) realistic universe. The Reapers when introduced seemed very creative compared to the standard uber omnipotent evil beings of most RPG games but I think that ME2 sacrificed to much story (minus that of the hub worlds) in the name of shooting things. That and it is now almost cliche to have a story that follows the plot of "I'm building an elite team of uber operatives to destroy the unknown indestructible evil that has only one random weakness that our tech person will just happen to figure out at the last moment"

I like ME1 when they talked about the evils of unchecked capitalism and the ineffectiveness of U.N. like organizations and other interesting topics. The only thing of that sort was the whole deal with the genophage which I very much enjoyed

Modifié par Fro_McJoe, 27 avril 2010 - 03:22 .

[FlyingWalrus]

So, because a story doesn't go the way you wanted it to, the writers are supposed to in turn cow to your demands? That's pretty damn arrogant.

From one writer to another, I'm looking to BioWare and saying, "Give me YOUR story. I've followed you this far because I've liked what I've read and I want to see where you're going with this."

ME2 was a more insular and isolated story. To say it was more poorly written is rubbish. I tend to brush off those who complain about the story being weaker as, heh, whiners. Mainly because the story itself, as a whole, isn't finished. Let's wait until ME3 and see where they're going with all this before blowing our tops, shall we? Besides, it is well known that the middle part of a trilogy tends to also be the weakest. Don't bother bringing up The Empire Strikes Back; I did say 'tends to be.'

As for the writers themselves, I'd guess that they're off working on their next project rather than lingering on the forums to justify their story decisions to a bunch of featureless names on the Internet?

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 27 avril 2010 - 03:40 .

[WilliamShatner]

vhatever wrote...

Where is my John Wayne?
Where is my prairie son?
Where is my happy ending?
Where have all the writers gone?

I was thinking more along the lines of The Kinks, but that is pretty damn good too.

Modifié par WilliamShatner, 27 avril 2010 - 04:22 .

[WilliamShatner]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

I see these threads and I don't understand why people make a fuss.

Gimme specific examples WHY the writers flopped. And don't give me a clip and say, "Doesn't it sound stupid?" Give me specific aspects and tell me who managed to do it better than the ME writers.

Well I'd say people's problems with ME2's writing is pretty well known on the forums so I didnt bother to reguritate it.  That wasn't the purpose of the thread.

However, take the opening scene in which your main character dies, wiping out 90% of what you achieved in the original, then being reanimated via hocus pocus and start from there.

[Cascadus]

The one thing I hate more than bad writing is people who call writing bad and essentially claim they can do better.

[WilliamShatner]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

So, because a story doesn't go the way you wanted it to, the writers are supposed to in turn cow to your demands? That's pretty damn arrogant.

From one writer to another, I'm looking to BioWare and saying, "Give me YOUR story. I've followed you this far because I've liked what I've read and I want to see where you're going with this."

ME2 was a more insular and isolated story. To say it was more poorly written is rubbish. I tend to brush off those who complain about the story being weaker as, heh, whiners. Mainly because the story itself, as a whole, isn't finished. Let's wait until ME3 and see where they're going with all this before blowing our tops, shall we? Besides, it is well known that the middle part of a trilogy tends to also be the weakest. Don't bother bringing up The Empire Strikes Back; I did say 'tends to be.'

As for the writers themselves, I'd guess that they're off working on their next project rather than lingering on the forums to justify their story decisions to a bunch of featureless names on the Internet?

You do realise what a massive contradiction that is?

Whether a film is a second part of a trilogy or not it has to work as a cohesive piece by itself.  The Emire Strikes Back does not need Return of the Jedi to be a satisfying work of cinema.  ME2 should not need ME3 to be satisfying either.

Comparisons to Empire Strikes Back are made because BioWare made them in the first place.  Personally I would compare it more to Alien 3.

[kraidy1117]

WilliamShatner wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

I see these threads and I don't understand why people make a fuss.

Gimme specific examples WHY the writers flopped. And don't give me a clip and say, "Doesn't it sound stupid?" Give me specific aspects and tell me who managed to do it better than the ME writers.

Well I'd say people's problems with ME2's writing is pretty well known on the forums so I didnt bother to reguritate it.  That wasn't the purpose of the thread.

However, take the opening scene in which your main character dies, wiping out 90% of what you achieved in the original, then being reanimated via hocus pocus and start from there.

Funny, because I remember running into old faces, savingt he council and telling them to cram it, seeing Wrex who was very happy to see me, telling Tali if the data I gave her worked, Garrus moral is influnced by what you said in the first game, you get extra dialog with Miri if you did the Cerberus quest, the emnails you get are all from the side missions and reveal alot of good stuff and it was not hocus pocus. It took two years and alot of resources. Plus it is poseable they used Reaper tech to bring Shepard back to life.

Also people treat you diffrently on your choices from the first game. I have done eight playthroughs and I am still finding new things out.

[kraidy1117]

WilliamShatner wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

So, because a story doesn't go the way you wanted it to, the writers are supposed to in turn cow to your demands? That's pretty damn arrogant.

From one writer to another, I'm looking to BioWare and saying, "Give me YOUR story. I've followed you this far because I've liked what I've read and I want to see where you're going with this."

ME2 was a more insular and isolated story. To say it was more poorly written is rubbish. I tend to brush off those who complain about the story being weaker as, heh, whiners. Mainly because the story itself, as a whole, isn't finished. Let's wait until ME3 and see where they're going with all this before blowing our tops, shall we? Besides, it is well known that the middle part of a trilogy tends to also be the weakest. Don't bother bringing up The Empire Strikes Back; I did say 'tends to be.'

As for the writers themselves, I'd guess that they're off working on their next project rather than lingering on the forums to justify their story decisions to a bunch of featureless names on the Internet?

You do realise what a massive contradiction that is?

Whether a film is a second part of a trilogy or not it has to work as a cohesive piece by itself.  The Emire Strikes Back does not need Return of the Jedi to be a satisfying work of cinema.  ME2 should not need ME3 to be satisfying either.

Comparisons to Empire Strikes Back are made because BioWare made them in the first place.  Personally I would compare it more to Alien 3.

Only a small crowd liked Empire Strikes back when it came out. Majority hated it. The story did not even have a proper ending and thats where alot of critism comes from. RotJ made Empire Strikes Back what it is today. Just because you liked ESB does not mean everyone else, just like ME2. You might hate the game but majority love it.

[FlyingWalrus]

WilliamShatner wrote...

You do realise what a massive contradiction that is?

I don't see the contradiction? ME2 is an enclosed story but it's still part of a larger one. Unless, of course, you choose to take the path that ends the story permanently, heh.

Whether a film is a second part of a trilogy or not it has to work as a cohesive piece by itself.  The Emire Strikes Back does not need Return of the Jedi to be a satisfying work of cinema.  ME2 should not need ME3 to be satisfying either.

Wrong. If you did not watch A New Hope, you had no idea who these Empire or Rebels people were, why they were fighting, or who Obi-Wan Kenobi was and why his ghost was out on the fields of an ice planet. You wouldn't be compelled to care about the big reveal in Episode V. It, in fact, ends rather abruptly. With episodic stories, they're all going to be dependent on one another: the first must rely on the next few to feel resolved, and the last relies on the ones that come before to set it up. The only independence they can muster up is in the smaller stories of characters and events within that tie into the greater ones at hand.

I'm likening ME2 more to The Two Towers myself.

[kraidy1117]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Wrong. If you did not watch A New Hope, you had no idea who these Empire or Rebels people were, why they were fighting, or who Obi-Wan Kenobi was and why his ghost was out on the fields of an ice planet. You wouldn't be compelled to care about the big reveal in Episode V. It, in fact, ends rather abruptly. With episodic stories, they're all going to be dependent on one another: the first must rely on the next few to feel resolved, and the last relies on the ones that come before to set it up. The only independence they can muster up is in the smaller stories of characters and events within that tie into the greater ones at hand.

I'm likening ME2 more to The Two Towers myself.

This. You would even be more lost in RotJ without watching ESB.

[Sevrun]

Firstly, I'd like to thank some of you for offering up some very well thought out and coherent arguments without the typical slide into flaming.



That being said there were a few things that left me scratching my head in the story overall, whole recreating Shepard thing being one of them, but I can't think of any other way for them to have disposed of all the equipment you would have amassed from the first one without a LOT more lead in.

But poorly written? No. There were a few things here and there that I thought could have been better fleshed out, but it was certainly not poorly written. Take it from a failed writer, I know crappy writing, it's why I never finished writing either of the books I started



I have to agree with Walrus on this one, there was another game that was set to be a trilogy but unlike Mass Effect had an ending that was meant to lead straight into the second. Second game never materialized and so my impressions of that game are now somewhat marred because the story of the first game felt incomplete. I actually like how they managed to keep each game's story encapsulated within the game and not have issues from the first overflow into the second. This is something I had not yet considered until reading through this thread.



P.S. I didn't name the game mentioned above because I don't know how touchy this forum is about such things. drop me a line if it's not going to get me banned and I'll edit the post to insert the name.

[akerrpl5]

I'm kinda caught in the middle about this subject. There are different factors to account for that cannot be simplified in ME1- good ME2 - bad. That simplified and narrow point of view is what generates useless and endless posts filled with rubbish.

Since the subject here seems to be storyline I find that both games have their flaws but ME2 has the disadvantage of being a sequel. That means higher expectations and less possibilities to change storyline adding new plot twists.

What made ME1 great for me was the whole new universe, a somewhat reasonable explanation to aliens being sapiens (I inferred this, as the game does not explain on its own and I think this should not be explained as it falls outside our inteligibility non-anthropomorphized especies), an oblivious enemy and a story well knit together. But all that was not something to be thrilled about in ME2 (except for the last argument) sincemost of this points were old news. So the storytelling had to be the factor to this game achieving a high rating. I think ME2 gets off track from the main story. When I thought the game was about to start, it ended (I wans't completely clueless because of the amount of hours I had played, but to the point I knew the game was about to end, I was already disappointed). I really liked the genophage part already mentioned in another post, was my favorite as it involved a lot of political and emotional background. But other than that, would have traded everything else for more insights on the main storyline.

Modifié par akerrpl5, 27 avril 2010 - 05:59 .

[Sevrun]

akerrpl5 wrote...

I'm kinda caught in the middle about this subject. There are different factors to account for that cannot be simplified in ME1- good ME2 - bad. That simplified and narrow point of view is what generates useless and endless posts filled with rubbish. Since the subject here seems to be storyline I find that both games have their flaws but ME2 has the disadvantage of being a sequel. That means higher expectations and less possibilities to change storyline adding new plot twists. What made ME1 great for me was the whole new universe, a somewhat reasonable explanation to aliens being sapiens (I inferred this, as the game does not explain on its own and I think this should not be explained as it falls outside our inteligibility non-anthropomorphized especies), an oblivious enemy and a story well knit together. But all that was not something to be thrilled about in ME2 (except for the last argument) since this was no novelty. So the storytelling had to be the factor to achieve this as a great game. I think ME2 gets off track. When I thought the game was about to start, it ended (I wans't completely clueless because of the amount of hours I had played, but to the point I knew the game was about to end, I was already disappointed). I really liked the genophage part already mentioned, was my favorite as it involved a lot of political and emotional background. But other than that, would have traded for more insights on the main storyline.

You're right, it's almost as if they were trying to set up your potential squadmates for the real sequel of the overarching story, since said main story was largely untouched for much of this game.

[Zulu_DFA]

They are listening to the fans...

[KitsuneRommel]

fchopin wrote...

kregano wrote...

And this is why if I was a Bioware writer, I would not make my presence known.

I tell it how it is, if the writers don’t like it to bad.
 
I gave them top marks for ME1 but ME2 the writing is very amateurish, if they want to hear lies and say so then i will lie.
 
If you like the game then enjoy, i don’t so i say what is my opinion.

ME1 characters were REALLY shallow compared to ME2. It was like the difference between Twilight and Interview with the Vampire. True, the story in ME1 seemed better but some of that was because the universe was new to us.

[MOTpoetryION]

(cant remember the name of band but )  its the song   "jukebox hero
|
| content is crap again
|
| in a second it bores
| they did'nt know how to wriite it
| couldnt even tell the score
|
| But this one little job  , that you do with your hand
| It diddnt take long      , now he could understand
|
| new at spinning storys  , with only one way to go
| im now the epic writer    ,as the fan base grows
|
| magic with the keyboard   , with lights down low
| every single story                ,will go row by row
|
| then she walked in the room  , with a dress cut low
| didnt know how to explain-it    , but it began to grow
|
| V game hero   , with words in his eyes
| V game hero   , with words in his eyes
|
| Its a one way ticket         ,aint never going to stop
| gotta keep on working   , but cant avoid her see thru top
|
| V game hero    ,with stars in his eyes
| V game hero    ,with stars in his eyes
|
| got starrrsss iiiin -hiiiis eyesssss
|
| da, na, na ,na ,na ,na ,naaa
|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just messing around ,not saying for real ok

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 27 avril 2010 - 05:38 .