257 réponses à ce sujet

[Anacronian Stryx]

I would vote Drew for the main reason that when ever he writes Mass Effect he tries to open up the universe -- his writing has scope, While Walters writing seams to have the opposite effect, If you're going to create a universe you might as well go for scope or else it all seems like a small brush fire conflict with the same 3 mercenary bands.

[vaylander]

I wonder if Drew will be involved in ME3 now that he's all the way in Texas.

[Mister Mida]

vaylander wrote...

I wonder if Drew will be involved in ME3 now that he's all the way in Texas.

Doubtful. I don't think he was much involved with ME2 either. Maybe he gave some input on some stuff, but it seems that his only contribution was the main plot involving the Collectors.

[bjdbwea]

Driveninhifi wrote...

Karpyshyn for sure. Mainly because a lot of the plot of ME2 felt quite forced, and the characters that are the most interesting were written by Patrick Weekes from what I understand (Mordin).

Since it seems he was also responsible for the Liara DLC, maybe this is a third name to add to the topic. And yes, I very much prefer his work. Let him continue to do the writing, if Mr. Karpyshyn is not available.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 septembre 2010 - 10:26 .

[silhouette80]

I don't recall exactly where I read it, but from what I understand Karpyshyn had outlined the story arc even before the release of the first game. So Walters is working within the framework of Karpyshyn's vision.

[FouCapitan]

Outside of the games I prefer Drew's work. Mass Effect: Ascension remains one of my favorite additions to the entire series.

[Malanek]

It's very difficult to judge this when the stuff we get our hands on has been worked on by both of them; and others as well. I would need a full breakdown of what things (missions, characters etc) each writer had written to make a call on that, otherwise it would just be uninformed.



As to the story in ME1 compared to ME2

ME1 introduced the universe and the main story was strung together with some interesting ideas, especially with the protheans and their acts of defiance.

ME2 had much better written characters, really good humour and developed many concepts introduced in ME1. The overall main story was too short and having a recruitment and loyalty mission for each sqad mate made it feel artificial. I actually feel the overall story of the reapers could have been told in 2 games because you could cover off everything important to the plot in ME2 quite quickly. However those individual missions were quite interesting.

[LPPrince]

I recall an interview where Casey Hudson vaguely insinuated that they "couldn't predict where the story would go" and were just coming up with stuff as they went along.



I know a lot of people who read the interview were infuriated.

[Mister Mida]

bjdbwea wrote...

Driveninhifi wrote...

Karpyshyn for sure. Mainly because a lot of the plot of ME2 felt quite forced, and the characters that are the most interesting were written by Patrick Weekes from what I understand (Mordin).

Since it seems he was also responsible for the Liara DLC, maybe this is a third name to add to the topic. And yes, I very much prefer his work. Let him continue to do the writing, if Mr. Karpyshyn is not available.

With all due respect for Mr. Weekes, but let's keep this discussion between the two lead writers Karpyshyn and Walters. If there is enough interest I'll create an additional thread where we can discuss all the writers of the ME series.

[SurfaceBeneath]

OP, your thread is silly. Mass Effect is not the sole vision of either of these people. There were over a dozen writers for each game and the general story arc of the entire trilogy was very likely something that was already decided before the first game was released. The "vision" you are referring to is shared among a great number of people, none of which can claim sole ownership of it and most of whom were preserved between the two games. Your poll is based off a false dichotomy and seems to me is just a way to try and justify a preference of one story over another.



On topic though, Karpyshyn is a stronger writer, but he is certainly not an amazing one. He's ok.

[elirian_19]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

OP, your thread is silly. Mass Effect is not the sole vision of either of these people. There were over a dozen writers for each game and the general story arc of the entire trilogy was very likely something that was already decided before the first game was released. The "vision" you are referring to is shared among a great number of people, none of which can claim sole ownership of it and most of whom were preserved between the two games. Your poll is based off a false dichotomy and seems to me is just a way to try and justify a preference of one story over another.

On topic though, Karpyshyn is a stronger writer, but he is certainly not an amazing one. He's ok.

This.

[Mister Mida]

Ok, I'll bite.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

OP, your thread is silly.
 

Noted.

Mass Effect is not the sole vision of either of these people. There were over a dozen writers for each game and the general story arc of the entire trilogy was very likely something that was already decided before the first game was released. The "vision" you are referring to is shared among a great number of people, none of which can claim sole ownership of it and most of whom were preserved between the two games.

Even when they're not the ones who made it all, as lead writers they had to give their seal of approval and bring it all together while writing probably the most of the main plot. So it's fair to say that they had the most influence in the proces.
Add to that that Karpyshyn and Walters are both more than lead video game writers. One has written novels, the other has written comics. If you've read through this thread you've seen people giving their opinions about their work outside the games. Between the two of us, you're the one limiting this discussion to just the two games.

Your poll is based off a false dichotomy and seems to me is just a way to try and justify a preference of one story over another.

Yet after over five pages you are the first to think so. If I was trying to 'justify a preference of one story over another' I wouldn't bother to list all the works in which both of them made a contribution. Your reasoning behind me creating this thread is flawed and dare I say it, a bit prejudiced.

On topic though, Karpyshyn is a stronger writer, but he is certainly not an amazing one. He's ok.

So this thread is not silly enough for you not to join in with the 'false dichotomy'. Riiiiight.

elirian_19 wrote...

This.

Best contribution to a discussion thread ever. [/sarcasm]

Modifié par Mister Mida, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:42 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Drew. I'm into this series because of the plot, something that was lacking severely in ME2.

[lekysma]

GOD i wish they would write more books about the ME universe,there is so much potential,so much to write about,whith quality writers they could even come to rival stra wars novels!

[morley37]

Xeranx wrote...

[

Also, her "zealotry" is non-existent.  Also, the founding fathers of the United States put God in the pledge of allegiance, and on our money and they are, in no way, thought of as zealots.  At least no one opposed to religion that I know has claimed that they were.

"Under god" was inserted into the pledge in the 1950s during the cold war to contrast with the "godless" communists. That's why it sounds so tacked-on when you recite it--it was.

"In god we trust" was put on the coinage by Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln's sec'y of the Treasury during the Civil War. He was apparently a bit of a...religious zealot.

[Sajon1]

Drew 110%

[Nightwriter]

Me not think much to day. Brain hurts.

Just tell me who was responsible for the story of ME1 and who was responsible for the story of ME2.

[imaDEVIENT]

Nightwriter wrote...

Me not think much to day. Brain hurts.

Just tell me who was responsible for the story of ME1 and who was responsible for the story of ME2.

Drew was ME1 and Mac was ME2.
I think they both were involved in both as well.

I lke both but the grittier ME2 just edges ahead in my book.

[GodWood]

They are both good in their own way but I'd prefer Drew to be lead writer.

[MrFob]

I also prefer Drew. While I like some of Walters work in ME2, I hated the comics (and not only for the ridiculous art style but also for how they handled characters from the game).

As it was stated in this thread, DK seems to have more of a grand scope vision for the universe and the main plot around Shepard. While MW writes emotionally engaging and well structure shot stories (see ME2 character missions), I think the lead should have the big epicure in mind (especially for the 3rd part of the trilogy).

[I.man]

Однозначно Drew Karpyshyn.

[Cra5y Pineapple]

Trick Question: Patrick Weekes.

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 23 octobre 2010 - 09:24 .

[Oblarg]

Drew Karpyshyn, no contest.  ME1 may not have had the greatest plot or writing in the world, but it was definitely good enough and when coupled with the fantastic atmosphere of the game it had great results.  The reveals were, to a point, predictable but they were still done well enough that nothing ever felt overly-simplistic or forced, and the ending left the player wanting more while still providing a satisfactory resolution to the immediate threats.

ME2s plot, aside from being completely absent from the majority of the game (thankfully, I guess), was paper-thin and nonsensical.  It literally felt like an afterthought, as if BioWare had made all these missions already and just decided to slap on a narrative at the last minute.  The character writing was good enough (ignoring, of course, the horrible scene on Horizon with your former crew member), but the overarching plot becomes comically absurd if you bother to pay attention to it.  Here you have the collectors, who are supposedly a threat to all of alliance space and even to Earth, yet they have a grand total of one ship which is defeated in a one-on-one fight with the Normandy, which isn't even a particularly powerful warship (it is described as having cruiser-class firepower if you upgrade it, but is still a frigate, and keep in mind that the alliance has an entire fleet).  The council's incompetence went from a slightly annoying plot device to flat-out absurdity, and Shepard never bothers to show them evidence even when they find an actual derelict reaper.  Throughout the game you're working for The Illusive Man, even though no explanation is given to reconcile this with the fact that Cerberus was unambiguously evil in the first game.  Worse than all this, though, is the utterly absurd approach you take to the "suicide mission."  Here you have a potentially  dangerous IFF that you've just retrieved from a dead reaper (without bothing to show the reaper to anyone, because obviously having allies wouldn't be right), and instead of studying it and attempting to send probes through the relay, or outfitting an entire fleet with them, or doing anything logical at all with it, you strap it straight on to your ship and head through the relay alone.  Is this supposed to be plausible?  Then, you get to the finale, in which we figure out that the entire Collector plan (which couldn't have possibly worked for reasons stated above) involves building a human reaper.  This makes no sense, on many levels.  For one, it's unclear why an ancient machine race that considers itself to transcend organics would model themselves on organics - what's the advantage to shaping a reaper like a human?  Humans didn't evolve to be giant sentient spaceships, last I checked.  Second, and even worse, it's unclear what this human reaper (if they actually managed to finish it) would be able to do that Sovereign couldn't, especially when the Alliance starts ramping up its military once more colonies go missing (though they really wouldn't need to, because the collectors only have one ****ing ship).

So yeah, ME1 had a fairly good plot.  ME2 had a poorly thought out mess.

Modifié par Oblarg, 23 octobre 2010 - 10:22 .

[Samuel L Shepard]

Walter-Drew Hybrid in ME3 FTW!!