320 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

@Capeo: Yes, but did you enjoy Star Wars?

[Capeo]

Il Divo wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Uh, the Star Wars trilogy is not regarded as quintessential anything in film.  Aside from maybe the quintessential ripoff of Kurasawa's actually quintessential work.  I own my own independent film studio, have taken film studies at three different colleges including the New School (where I've had workshops with Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Ellen Barkin and Philip Seymour Hoffman) and have never seen Star Wars dealt with anything but derision from a creative standpoint.  It and Jaws were essentially the start of the shallow summer tentpole movie that all studios have switched to.  At least Jaws had good acting and direction.

And that's wonderful for your own independent studio. It sounds more like you simply hate Star Wars. Hint: it's the monomyth.

Haha, using a term Joyce coined in relation to anything Lucas has ever created is funny.  Anyway, I don't see your point.  The Hero's Journey is the basis for thousands of stories.  That doesn't make them good stories and it certainly doesn't make Lucas a good writer or artist in any shape or form simply because he used it.  The structure of the story doesn't eliminate horrific dialog and horribly wooden acting.  Star Wars is somehow given a pass on all this due to nostalgia but if the first trilogy came out today it would be received on par with Battlefield Earth critically.  

Anyway, this is besides the point of the thread.  

[Capeo]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Capeo: Yes, but did you enjoy Star Wars?

When I was eight?  Yes.  Today I can't even sit through them.

[fivefingaslap18]

There was a post written earlier on here that I believe was very well made in that they didn't do much well with ME2, something I believe. Arrival destroys the whole point of ME2.

Reaper Plan A- Open Citdael Relay
Reaper Plan B- get a person to open the relay
Reaper Plan C- create a new Reaper and hope it destroys enough forces before the Reapers arrive
Reaper Plan D- hoof it

As it stands we can only assume the Reapers have been hoofing it since the end of ME1 because Sovereign was destroyed and assuming they can sense when Reapers die, there is no logical explanation they could make it to the Milky Way within 6 months as it would be impossible for them to use up all of their fuel out in dark space and successfully avoid suspicion by ME3. A three year trek to the Milky Way is plausible for them to make it to the Milky Way with enough time to get to us in ME3.

Now, why is ME2 so bad? There is no expansion of Prothean history as a poster above said. Not enough information to be gleamed from Legion as poster above said. No interaction between a sole survivor and TIM as said above (which should've been mandatory in my mind [first Shepard was one so I am biased]). There is no information given to us that TIM would be the big bad in ME3 and yet ME2 is all about working for him. Why have us follow him all the way till the end game if that's the case? Allow us to turn on him in some significant way before we get the chance to blow up the Collector Base. It would allow for our own decision to keep or destroy the base have a bigger impact and become much more significant if we would've had to defend ourselves after killing off the Collectors in the base from Cerberus. Finally, Arrival deals with the threat of the Reapers' immediate arrival. If they're the true antagonists of the game, and you left them out except for DLC, you better give me a better reason than to not feel cheated.

As it stands, ME2 is a lackluster game that barely holds together.

[Il Divo]

Capeo wrote...

Haha, using a term Joyce coined in relation to anything Lucas has ever created is funny.  Anyway, I don't see your point.  The Hero's Journey is the basis for thousands of stories.  That doesn't make them good stories and it certainly doesn't make Lucas a good writer or artist in any shape or form simply because he used it.  The structure of the story doesn't eliminate horrific dialog and horribly wooden acting.  Star Wars is somehow given a pass on all this due to nostalgia but if the first trilogy came out today it would be received on par with Battlefield Earth critically.  

Anyway, this is besides the point of the thread.  

No, it's accurate. Because that's what Star Wars is: the Hero's Journey. I think your bias is clear, in that your goal is to disparage Star Wars, with comparisons to Battlefield Earth and claims of "bad acting" rather than to engage in discussion regarding whether Lucas appropriately followed the Hero's Journey. There is "good writing", in the sense of having all the elements which a story is expected to retain. Once again, Star Wars meets the criteria.

I really couldn't care less what you think of the acting and dialogue, since it's not relevant to the argument. That's like meeting someone's claim that ME2 has good graphics with "No it doesn't, because the story sucks". Two entirely separate issues. 

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 janvier 2012 - 06:10 .

[fivefingaslap18]

The acting is alright in certain areas of Star Wars and than it is bad in other areas. The prequel trilogy is abysmal but certain actors were not allowed to act such as Portman, Lee, Jackson and others were acting: Christensen. There are parts of the original trilogy that aren't as good, but overall the story is not bad at all. It is a bit low on intelligent thought at times, but in other areas it asks major questions and brings up fantastic points to a society that most had not been exposed to in decades.

Star Wars changed film studios for decades to come certainly, but it has many underlying themes and statements beyond it being just time passing. There's a reason why we talk about it still even as it is divisive to film fanatics and historians alike. There must be some merit to it otherwise there is no ability that it can stir controversy. How much merit it brings is questionable to the person who finds or does not find merit in it, but it is there.

[Capeo]

Il Divo wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Haha, using a term Joyce coined in relation to anything Lucas has ever created is funny.  Anyway, I don't see your point.  The Hero's Journey is the basis for thousands of stories.  That doesn't make them good stories and it certainly doesn't make Lucas a good writer or artist in any shape or form simply because he used it.  The structure of the story doesn't eliminate horrific dialog and horribly wooden acting.  Star Wars is somehow given a pass on all this due to nostalgia but if the first trilogy came out today it would be received on par with Battlefield Earth critically.  

Anyway, this is besides the point of the thread.  

No, it's accurate. Because that's what Star Wars is: the Hero's Journey. I think your bias is clear, in that your goal is to disparage Star Wars, with comparisons to Battlefield Earth and claims of "bad acting" rather than to engage in discussion regarding whether Lucas appropriately followed the Hero's Journey. There is "good writing", in the sense of having all the elements which a story is expected to retain. Once again, Star Wars meets the criteria.

Oh, geez.  Following a template does not a good story make.  It doesn't matter if he followed it.  So do about 500 crappy paperback fantasy and sci-fi novels that flood the shelves of book stores every year.  None of them are good either.  And obviously yes, I'm disparaging Star Wars.  It's not my "goal".  It's clearly what I'm doing.  They're badly written, badly acted movies, even for the fluff they are.

Again, this is pointless.  Let's get back to how ME3 is going to be a story telling cluster- well, you know.

[Il Divo]

Capeo wrote...

Oh, geez.  Following a template does not a good story make.  It doesn't matter if he followed it.  So do about 500 crappy paperback fantasy and sci-fi novels that flood the shelves of book stores every year.  None of them are good either.  And obviously yes, I'm disparaging Star Wars.  It's not my "goal".  It's clearly what I'm doing.  They're badly written, badly acted movies, even for the fluff they are.

Again, this is pointless.  Let's get back to how ME3 is going to be a story telling cluster- well, you know.

And yet, none of those have attained the cultural significance of Star Wars. Come back to me when they have and we might have something to talk about. There's a reason the monomyth template exists. Star Wars is a  cultural phenomenon because of its implementation of the Hero's Journey, regardless of whether you think it's crap acting. Subjective assessment's of a film's overall quality are outside the bounds of the argument.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 janvier 2012 - 08:46 .

[twisty77]

Who cares? Aside from a few slip ups here and there, they've done a pretty damn good job holding everything together thus far.

Granted, we haven't played ME3 yet. So I reserve judgement until after it comes out.

[Sgt Stryker]

twisty77 wrote...

Who cares? Aside from a few slip ups here and there, they've done a pretty damn good job holding everything together thus far.

Granted, we haven't played ME3 yet. So I reserve judgement until after it comes out.

The way I see it, it's not so much that the lack of planning "ruined" the series' story. For a video game story, it's still pretty damn good. However, I do admit that if there was more planning done early on, there would have been significant improvement across the board.

[seirhart]

who cares if they're following an outline ME and ME 2 was damn good.

[Dean_the_Young]

Il Divo wrote...

See, that was why I liked the ME2 approach. Rather than even admit to it, TIM essentially gives the politician answer : "They all went rogue". And there's just enough information to point us in both directions (Overlord vs. Jack's loyalty mission). Did those various projects really go rogue? Sure, TIM says so, but much like before, we need to be careful with any source of information.

TIM only makes the claim once, total, in regards to Overlord. And that's after we find out the truth ourselves.

TIM never addresses Teltin one way or the other.

No one has ever claimed that all the other projects went rogue.


The whole 'all those projects went rogue' spiel was created by the fans, never claimed by the game.

[Il Divo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

See, that was why I liked the ME2 approach. Rather than even admit to it, TIM essentially gives the politician answer : "They all went rogue". And there's just enough information to point us in both directions (Overlord vs. Jack's loyalty mission). Did those various projects really go rogue? Sure, TIM says so, but much like before, we need to be careful with any source of information.

TIM only makes the claim once, total, in regards to Overlord. And that's after we find out the truth ourselves.

TIM never addresses Teltin one way or the other.

No one has ever claimed that all the other projects went rogue.


The whole 'all those projects went rogue' spiel was created by the fans, never claimed by the game.

Really? I could have sworn that when speaking to Miranda that she says that none of those projects were approved by the Illusive Man, regarding the experiments Shepard comes across in ME1.

[Lambchopz]

Il Divo wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Oh, geez.  Following a template does not a good story make.  It doesn't matter if he followed it.  So do about 500 crappy paperback fantasy and sci-fi novels that flood the shelves of book stores every year.  None of them are good either.  And obviously yes, I'm disparaging Star Wars.  It's not my "goal".  It's clearly what I'm doing.  They're badly written, badly acted movies, even for the fluff they are.

Again, this is pointless.  Let's get back to how ME3 is going to be a story telling cluster- well, you know.

And yet, none of those have attained the cultural significance of Star Wars. Come back to me when they have and we might have something to talk about. There's a reason the monomyth template exists. Star Wars is a  cultural phenomenon because of its implementation of the Hero's Journey, regardless of whether you think it's crap acting. Subjective assessment's of a film's overall quality are outside the bounds of the argument.  

You just sound like an egotistical hipster who thinks he deserves brownie points for being an "indepedent" film maker. I'm really not a huge fan of Star Wars myself, but it didn't become succesful and culturally signifigant because it was an objectively bad movie. Objectively, you just sound dumb saying it was a bad movie. Box office sales and fan feedback say otherwise. If you don't like it, that's fine, neither do I. Fact is, some people loved it and to this day it remains one of the biggest sci-fi stories ever made. A similar case can be made for Mass Effect.

Some people absolutely adore Mass Effect for all sorts of reasons and have absolutely no problem with the story or even most of the gameplay. The amount of Mass Effect fans who fall somewhere in that range probably outweighs those of you who claim to somehow have the ability to, without question, claim that the ME story is bad on these ego-centric tangents. You are welcome to dislike Mass Effect and not play it. Those of us who still like it and are looking forward to ME3 will buy it, play it, and enjoy it no matter what you lot say. Funny thing is I'm sure most of you will buy it also, despite the tremendous whining about things like this.

At the end of the day, BioWare has been pretty receptive to player feedback in both the gameplay and story department, but it's still their story. They are allowed to do with it what they want, in a sense, we are lucky they give us any say at all, and that is why people still like them even though they certainly have their flaws.

[Aimi]

Il Divo wrote...

Really? I could have sworn that when speaking to Miranda that she says that none of those projects were approved by the Illusive Man, regarding the experiments Shepard comes across in ME1.

No. If Shep brings up the tests on Thorian creepers, husks, and rachni, Miri says that the Thorian creepers and husks were mindless and that the rachni project was abandoned once their intelligence became obvious - although she never says whether that was out of "oh no we are doing tests on intelligent beings with innate sentient rights" or "oh no we are doing tests on things smart enough to escape and f*** us up".

She then notes that having an army of mindless shock troops would've been extremely beneficial against the geth, especially if they possessed the combat power of the rachni.

[Il Divo]

daqs wrote...

No. If Shep brings up the tests on Thorian creepers, husks, and rachni, Miri says that the Thorian creepers and husks were mindless and that the rachni project was abandoned once their intelligence became obvious - although she never says whether that was out of "oh no we are doing tests on intelligent beings with innate sentient rights" or "oh no we are doing tests on things smart enough to escape and f*** us up".

She then notes that having an army of mindless shock troops would've been extremely beneficial against the geth, especially if they possessed the combat power of the rachni.

Oh damn. Alright, I will definitely take that. I certainly like it better than my version.  

[Funkcase]

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

There was a post written earlier on here that I believe was very well made in that they didn't do much well with ME2, something I believe. Arrival destroys the whole point of ME2.

Reaper Plan A- Open Citdael Relay
Reaper Plan B- get a person to open the relay
Reaper Plan C- create a new Reaper and hope it destroys enough forces before the Reapers arrive
Reaper Plan D- hoof it

As it stands we can only assume the Reapers have been hoofing it since the end of ME1 because Sovereign was destroyed and assuming they can sense when Reapers die, there is no logical explanation they could make it to the Milky Way within 6 months as it would be impossible for them to use up all of their fuel out in dark space and successfully avoid suspicion by ME3. A three year trek to the Milky Way is plausible for them to make it to the Milky Way with enough time to get to us in ME3.

Now, why is ME2 so bad? There is no expansion of Prothean history as a poster above said. Not enough information to be gleamed from Legion as poster above said. No interaction between a sole survivor and TIM as said above (which should've been mandatory in my mind [first Shepard was one so I am biased]). There is no information given to us that TIM would be the big bad in ME3 and yet ME2 is all about working for him. Why have us follow him all the way till the end game if that's the case? Allow us to turn on him in some significant way before we get the chance to blow up the Collector Base. It would allow for our own decision to keep or destroy the base have a bigger impact and become much more significant if we would've had to defend ourselves after killing off the Collectors in the base from Cerberus. Finally, Arrival deals with the threat of the Reapers' immediate arrival. If they're the true antagonists of the game, and you left them out except for DLC, you better give me a better reason than to not feel cheated.

As it stands, ME2 is a lackluster game that barely holds together.

I didn't think ''Reaper Plan C- create a new Reaper and hope it destroys enough forces before the Reapers arrive'' was really what they were going for, I think they were just simply creating a new Reaper (I mean we saw it wasn't anywhere near ready) I think Harbinger was a little stupid though and should have just waited for the other Reapers to arrive.

Modifié par Funkcase, 28 janvier 2012 - 03:41 .

[Vez04]

Since i dident wanna make a thread about this, i think it's worth putting in here instead.

kotaku.com/5880034/how-bioware-writes-a-mass-effect-game

There is a few intersting tiny bits of ME3 reapers info in there aswell, and for anyone thinking they could turn to be good guys for the player, NO! you will more likely be shooting anyone you see of them according to Mac.

[tobynator89]

y'know, thats how all games and movies are made these days, extensive rewrites, deleted scenes and setpieces etc.