1370 réponses à ce sujet

[Ottemis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
*snip

Ottemis wrote...
*snip
This is where you think to know more then the rest of the world yet again, yes?

Just more than you, and just specifically when it comes to the subject of constructing and presenting a coherent and internally consistent setting within a fictional work.

Aha, more than me. Also, a million dollar company, Bioware.
Sounds like a realistic outlook for a forum-dweller.

Aaanyways /care

Modifié par Ottemis, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:03 .

[Xeranx]

Ottemis wrote...

Yes conveniently skip over my reply, go ahead.

To be quite fair, your response was ended with: 

Anyways, I'm done with this silly-ness.

Even if one were to reply to your post, your concluding statement suggests that there's no reason to respond.  If you didn't want someone to not respond, then your concluding statement shouldn't have been what it was.  

I regard that statement as a statement of you removing yourself from that particular discussion or the thread itself. Why would someone want to force their view on you when you say you're done?   After such a conclusion, to expect someone to reply is silly.  You have to make a choice to either leave your comment open to response or don't.  Last I checked, most people aren't mind readers.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Ottemis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
*snip

Ottemis wrote...
*snip
This is where you think to know more then the rest of the world yet again, yes?

Just more than you, and just specifically when it comes to the subject of constructing and presenting a coherent and internally consistent setting within a fictional work.

Aha, more than me. Also, a million dollar company, Bioware.
Sounds like a realistic outlook for a forum-dweller.

Aaanyways /care

This is what, the third time you've "/cared"? 

As for whether a particular single forum dweller or other person knows more about worldbuilding and internal consistency and continuity than a million-dollar company -- based on the evidence at hand, the answer would be yes. 

[didymos1120]

Xeranx wrote...

 Last I checked, most people aren't mind readers.

It's rather surprising how many of them think they are around here though.

[Nashiktal]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Internal consistency is desirable even in a fantasy setting.

I don't see how that applies to the vacuum argumentaton.

When it's established that sealed hardsuits exist in the setting to deal with hazardous environments, their absence in situations which clearly call for them is an example of inconsistency.

and when would that be? oh you mean the one side mission that's so out of the way you find it by scanning random planet number 5? the only time you're in space is during arrival and only Shepard is on that mission so unless you used gibbed to get extra outfits, you're in your N7 armor and your breather helmet (or deathmask) is on your head.

I would definitely not call the reaper ship "out of the way." At the very end of the mission you jump through space to get to your ship. The reaper ship was shut down so no ME field, and to top it all off you were in a frakking brown dwarf full of swirling gasses, radiation. extreme temperature and more added to the vacuume.

Even without vacuume there is still the planets whose temperatue or environement should kill or seriously impare the squadmates, as personal shields do not protect from anything but fast moving small objects. It does not protect against radiation, poisonous gas, extreme temperatures, the works. All of this was acknowledged in ME1 and was even a gameplay mechanic, so the transition from that to ME2's exposed skin extravaganza was actually quite jarring for me.

That doesn't even have anything to do with character design, i'm fine with jack being exposed like she is when it makes sense. But when certain environs call for it, I want hardsuits that make sense. I loved the style of ME1, and that was partially thanks to bioware adhering to environemental factors.

It doesn't have to be an either or situation. Give ashley that blue "uniform" (even though I still maintain it looks ugly) but give dress them right for the occasion. Luckily bioware seems to be listening in this regard, but I still have my worries. Ever since Drew left its like all of Mass Effect decided to toss away some of the more grounded space opera aspects of the series for the usual hollywood stylisation. 

It worries me.

[Ottemis]

I'd care more about this discussion if it was actually one. Which it clearly isn't.
As per usual on any forum, once compelling counter-arguments are made, they just get ignored.
And I have made them, repeatedly.

In the end i'm not the one questioning decissions made by the creators of this universe, or claim to know more than they do about their own creations. These are all opinions about choices made by writers of a fictional world. What you think of their choices is an opinion, and you not liking things does not point towards bad writing.

Modifié par Ottemis, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:28 .

[didymos1120]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

...based on the evidence at hand, the answer would be yes. 

Not quite.  You're forgetting that there's another explanation just as good: that they know all the things you know perfectly well, but decided to break consistency for other reasons they deemed more important. I'd argue that this is in fact the one when it comes to ME2, as interviews and such make it clear that what had priority was giving each squadmate a strong identity via their character design, which resulted in them having the "iconic" outfits instead of just using generic gear.

[Wulfram]

Ottemis wrote...

Aha, more than me. Also, a million dollar company, Bioware.
Sounds like a realistic outlook for a forum-dweller.

Aaanyways /care

Bioware no doubt know more than me about creating an internally consistent setting.  However in this case they appear to have decided that they cared less about consistency and more about Rule of Cool.

Modifié par Wulfram, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:29 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

So far, Ottemis, your position seems to amount to "it doesn't matter it's a fictional game" and "bioware just knows better because they do."

It's not just a matter of opinion -- internal inconsistency objectively points to bad writing and bad worldbuilding.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:34 .

[Ottemis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So far, your "arguments" have seemed to amount to "it doesn't matter it's a fictional game" and "bioware just knows better because they do."

They know better because it's their creations, you can like their creation or you don't, but it's their creation so THEIR rules apply. It being fictional and all that.
--
In Mass Effect's setting, the lack of 'consistent' full-body hardplating is (or could be) explainable.
That they don't explain it doesn't mean there's no explanation.
That you might not like their explanation, should they give it, is another matter altogether.

Saying something is unrealistic in a fictional sci-fi setting is rather stupid.
A realistic statement would be: "If  XY was situated in our world, in our time, at our level of technological advancement, this would be unrealistic. As it's not, it's conceivable that XY is possible."

Modifié par Ottemis, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:40 .

[Nashiktal]

Ottemis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So far, your "arguments" have seemed to amount to "it doesn't matter it's a fictional game" and "bioware just knows better because they do."

They know better because it's their creations, you can like their creation or you don't, but it's their creation so THEIR rules apply. It being fictional and all that.
--
In Mass Effect's setting, the lack of 'consistent' full-body hardplating is (or could be) explainable.
That they don't explain it doesn't mean there's no explanation.
That you might not like their explanation, should they give it, is another matter altogether.

Saying something is unrealistic in a fictional sci-fi setting is rather stupid.

This brings up an entirely new problem though and I think a quote from TV tropes is relevant here.

"On the other hand, somebody who hopes to promote a movie can't insist
it's "just a movie" and critics should "just relax" while also expecting
they take seriously any aesop, speculation, spectacle, or anything else
of potential value from it. Anyone who expects another to be selective
of a work in exactly their prescribed way is insulting the intelligence
of the audience. This isn't about critical appraisal, but what is
necessary to tell a story. When criticism targets those things that were
simply unexplained, that's when you bring up Bellisario's Maxim."


"At the same time however, one should be careful that they do not go too far and use this to justify saying that The Complainer Is Always Wrong.
Yes, there's no point in getting excessively worked up and nitpicky
about something that, at the end of the day, is just a work of fiction.
But using it as a way of brushing off any and all forms of criticism is
an equally dangerous attitude to have, and in creators can be a possible
sign of a Small Name, Big Ego at work."

Modifié par Nashiktal, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:41 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Thank You for your VGA Votes – Most Anticipated Game of 2012

Due to the overwhelming support and voting by our community, Mass Effect 3 was chosen as the Most Anticipated Game of 2012 at Video Game Awards last weekend! Woot! We were up against four other awesome titles, so this is a huge honor. Thank you, thank you for rallying together and telling the world how excited you are for March!

As a thank you for rallying behind Mass Effect 3 we’d like to release this screenshot featuring Ashley in her Spectre armor.



We're also going to be having fun with captioning the photo on our Mass Effect 3 Facebook page and the best entries have a chance to win swag! Head over to the ME3 Facebook page and add your entry.

Very nice. I was afraid you guys were gonna give her a cat suit.

[Icinix]

Nashiktal wrote...

That doesn't even have anything to do with character design, i'm fine with jack being exposed like she is when it makes sense. But when certain environs call for it, I want hardsuits that make sense. I loved the style of ME1, and that was partially thanks to bioware adhering to environemental factors.

It doesn't have to be an either or situation. Give ashley that blue "uniform" (even though I still maintain it looks ugly) but give dress them right for the occasion. Luckily bioware seems to be listening in this regard, but I still have my worries. Ever since Drew left its like all of Mass Effect decided to toss away some of the more grounded space opera aspects of the series for the usual hollywood stylisation. 

It worries me.

Pretty much.  ME1 nailed it, more relaxed outfits on the Normandy, combat when off.  Forced helments in some enviornments.

ME2 went with just one look and left it at that.  It was like a cop out.

And like has been written a thousand times, and will be written a thousand more.

They definitely have jumped off the path that was originally an epic space opera in favour of a straight up sci-fi action shooter. Albeit, probably the best straight up sci-fi action shooter we'll see for 2012 - but like ME2 - its looking like it could have been so much more.

[Ziggy]

Ottemis wrote...

Saying something is unrealistic in a fictional sci-fi setting is rather stupid.

I haven't followed the whole argument that's going on here atm,
but I have to disagree with this, quite strongly.

In good sci-fi stories you generally have an unrealistic premis or setting sure, but within that they try to obey the laws of physics, have passable explanations where they don't, and try to maintain a certain internal consistency.

[Killjoy Cutter]

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

...based on the evidence at hand, the answer would be yes. 

Not quite.  You're forgetting that there's another explanation just as good: that they know all the things you know perfectly well, but decided to break consistency for other reasons they deemed more important. I'd argue that this is in fact the one when it comes to ME2, as interviews and such make it clear that what had priority was giving each squadmate a strong identity via their character design, which resulted in them having the "iconic" outfits instead of just using generic gear.

They could have made environmentally appropriate gear for each reflective of their "iconic" look and had the best of both worlds, instead of insulting the player's intelligence.

[Ottemis]

Em23 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Saying something is unrealistic in a fictional sci-fi setting is rather stupid.

I haven't followed the whole argument that's going on here atm,
but I have to disagree with this, quite strongly.

In good sci-fi stories you generally have an unrealistic premis or setting sure, but within that they try to obey the laws of physics, have passable explanations where they don't, and try to maintain a certain internal consistency.

And they do have passable explanations everyone could think of on their own, but apparently they are being dismissed while they define the exotic side of the setting. So yes, dismissing the explanation would pull the entire setting out of whack, as it would no longer be 'realistic' being viewed as a clone of the 'now' in the future...
You can't remove the cause for something and have the effect make sense.

Modifié par Ottemis, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:57 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Ottemis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So far, your "arguments" have seemed to amount to "it doesn't matter it's a fictional game" and "bioware just knows better because they do."

They know better because it's their creations, you can like their creation or you don't, but it's their creation so THEIR rules apply. It being fictional and all that.
--
In Mass Effect's setting, the lack of 'consistent' full-body hardplating is (or could be) explainable.
That they don't explain it doesn't mean there's no explanation.
That you might not like their explanation, should they give it, is another matter altogether.

Saying something is unrealistic in a fictional sci-fi setting is rather stupid.
A realistic statement would be: "If  XY was situated in our world, in our time, at our level of technological advancement, this would be unrealistic. As it's not, it's conceivable that XY is possible."

To be bluntly honest, then, you don't really understand what actual science fiction is.  

For starters, your repeated statements of "it could be possible we don't know" are exactly backwards.  It is never established within the presentation of the setting in the game, that it's normal and routine for ME-setting-future humans to survive nearly-naked exposure to vacuum or near vacuum, hard radiation, corrosive or toxic gasses, etc. 

And yet here we have Jack, for example, pretty much naked from the waste up, running around in those conditions.  It's not even established in the presentation how she in particular would survive this. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 19 décembre 2011 - 10:00 .

[Ziggy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

...based on the evidence at hand, the answer would be yes. 

Not quite.  You're forgetting that there's another explanation just as good: that they know all the things you know perfectly well, but decided to break consistency for other reasons they deemed more important. I'd argue that this is in fact the one when it comes to ME2, as interviews and such make it clear that what had priority was giving each squadmate a strong identity via their character design, which resulted in them having the "iconic" outfits instead of just using generic gear.

They could have made environmentally appropriate gear for each reflective of their "iconic" look and had the best of both worlds, instead of insulting the player's intelligence.

Seems to me one camp values realism/consistency above iconic outfits and the other vice-versa.

I'm afraid you'll have to agree to disagree...

[Ottemis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So far, your "arguments" have seemed to amount to "it doesn't matter it's a fictional game" and "bioware just knows better because they do."

They know better because it's their creations, you can like their creation or you don't, but it's their creation so THEIR rules apply. It being fictional and all that.
--
In Mass Effect's setting, the lack of 'consistent' full-body hardplating is (or could be) explainable.
That they don't explain it doesn't mean there's no explanation.
That you might not like their explanation, should they give it, is another matter altogether.

Saying something is unrealistic in a fictional sci-fi setting is rather stupid.
A realistic statement would be: "If  XY was situated in our world, in our time, at our level of technological advancement, this would be unrealistic. As it's not, it's conceivable that XY is possible."

To be bluntly honest, then, you don't really understand what actual science fiction is.  

I clearly remember calling the ME universe a sci-fi fantasy setting.

Biotics make Samara fly. Is it established what similar exotic factors do and or can manipulate? No.

Modifié par Ottemis, 19 décembre 2011 - 10:02 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Ottemis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So far, your "arguments" have seemed to amount to "it doesn't matter it's a fictional game" and "bioware just knows better because they do."

They know better because it's their creations, you can like their creation or you don't, but it's their creation so THEIR rules apply. It being fictional and all that.
--
In Mass Effect's setting, the lack of 'consistent' full-body hardplating is (or could be) explainable.
That they don't explain it doesn't mean there's no explanation.
That you might not like their explanation, should they give it, is another matter altogether.

Saying something is unrealistic in a fictional sci-fi setting is rather stupid.
A realistic statement would be: "If  XY was situated in our world, in our time, at our level of technological advancement, this would be unrealistic. As it's not, it's conceivable that XY is possible."

To be bluntly honest, then, you don't really understand what actual science fiction is.  

I clearly remember calling the ME universe a sci-fi fantasy setting.

It wasn't in ME1. 

It tottered in that direction in ME2.

Ottemis wrote...
Biotics make Samara fly. Is it established what similar exotic factors do and or can manipulate? No.

In one cutscene, she slows her fall.  Color me unimpressed by "cutscene awesome" in general. 

And again, you have the burden of establishing the facts of the setting backwards, in asserting that anything is possible in the setting until it's established that it's not. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 19 décembre 2011 - 10:07 .

[Ottemis]

Biotics.

[Segameister]

Awesome screenshot, I can't wait for more (non-spoiler) info as we get closer!

[Killjoy Cutter]

Ottemis wrote...

Biotics.

Where is it established that biotics allows someone to survive the conditions of being exposed to space?

[Ottemis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Biotics.

Where is it established that biotics allows someone to survive the conditions of being exposed to space?

Where is it contradicted?

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
And again, you have the burden of establishing the facts of the setting backwards, in asserting that anything is possible in the setting until it's established that it's not. 

I actually feel quite unburdened in being a 'glass half-full' kinda gal.

Modifié par Ottemis, 19 décembre 2011 - 10:10 .

[didymos1120]

Nashiktal wrote...

Ever since Drew left its like all of Mass Effect decided to toss away some of the more grounded space opera aspects of the series for the usual hollywood stylisation. 

a. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
b. Not even that, actually, as Drew still worked on ME2, and that includes the main plot. He was co-lead when all that was being laid out at the start of development, and didn't leave that position until roughly halfway through development.  That would also be the period when these character designs were being done. 
c. People seem to have really weird ideas about what the lead writer actually does.  It's a managerial position:

Starwarsbuddies.com: Working for BioWare must be one of the best jobs in the world; can you take us through a general day?

Drew Karpyshyn: It’s a great job, but we work hard. As the lead writer, most of my mornings are consumed with meetings. I meet with the artists, the cinematic designers, the level designers, the audio and voice over people, the other writers… anyone who is contributing to the game. It’s important that we all stay on the same page, and everyone understands the vision of whatever we happen to be working on. In the afternoon, if I’m lucky, I get a chance to do some actual writing for the game. Unfortunately, this only happens about 2 or 3 days a week - often my writing time has to be put aside for more meetings. Anytime you get 100+ talented, passionate people working on a game, it’s going to be difficult to keep everyone moving in the same direction. So all the leads on the project (Lead Designer, Lead Artist, Lead Animator, the Project Director,etc.) find themselves struggling to balance meetings with actual content creation.

They're a TEAM lead, and only one of many. They definitely don't have any sort of "jurisdiction" over art direction and stuff like that, even if their input on such subjects will at least be listened to should they choose to give it (as seems to be the case at Bioware). The writers aren't even necessarily the ones who create any given character. In fact, the larger a role a character has, the less likely it is that they'll mostly be under any individual's control, much less a single writer's. Unless of course that individual is Casey Hudson.