621 réponses à ce sujet

[Comrade Goby]

Ultimate strategy!

We fight. Or we die!

Brilliant! Shepard truly is Alexander!

Also I'm concerned with only having a top and bottom choice. I haven't seen any footage in any trailer so far with more than a top and bottom choice? Can anybody link me if there is one that shows more?

[FlashedMyDrive]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...


The trial and other earlier scenes could have set the stage and tone, recapped on past events, developed the situation, and built a personal and emotional attachment to Earth and the new people you meet, making the subsequent attack more devastating.  A good writer knows how to lay down a solid foundation before tearing it all down. Creating unnecessary and blatant story devices (such as the kid) in order to make people feel bad is a clear example of bad writing. Mass effect 3's into was dull and awful. You could cut the entire thing out and it would have made no difference.

You may as well have started Mass Effect 3 on the Citadel seeing as everyone already knows that the Reapers were going to invade Earth, showing it happen is  essentially pointless by your logic.

It could have but was obviously never planned that way.  The trial could have actually presented more problems and I know the very same people complaining about writing would be saying:  "The writing sucks. You guys condensed what should realistically be weeks of hearings into 3 minutes." "Answers in the trial seemed forced." "Why all the auto dialogue!?" "The appearances and tesimony of past squad members is sooo cheesy!" "The trial is way too long!  I have to skip through 5 minutes of convos to get to the action!" and the list goes on.  Not to mention new players could get lost real fast when going into so much detail about Shep's past.  Very challenging to implement but would have been awsome if done perfectly (and probably would have gained more critism regardless than the current intro).

What Bioware did do was make a streamlined intro to explain the basicsof both storyt and combat, leaving the details for later with Squad/NPC interaction on the Normandy.  The player and new players don't need to know everything right a way.  That's bad writing the same way writers give the player characters false amnesia so NPCs can explain away the plot of a previous installment:  "Don't you remember, we took on the Geth and killed a Reaper?"  Hopefully we see none of that in ME3.

The kid is a non issue.  If you saw a kid playing on a roof, an alien invasion occured, you tried to escape the city and met the kid again, tried to help him but he got away, got on a helicopter and saw the kid's evac truck get blown up by said aliens you would have reacted the same way Shep did.  It's your opinion that writing in the kid in was bad, but Bioware isn't hiding his purpose.  They already stated they did so to tug on player emotions.

  My rule of thumb is I play the scenes out in my head and how something would happen in real life or how I would have responded if I was in that situation.  If it works out the writing is good.  If it seems unrealistic or lacking common sense it's not good (like horror movie logic and staying in a haunted house when you just say a ghost).

You remember what they did with ME1?

Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed it down on ME2 and added more action.

Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed setting building out completely in ME3.

Tutorial Action (Earth) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have taken the time to add more detail to the intro. Most likely the reason why the intro was cut was in order to appeal to the FPS crowd or the incompitence of the writers. Just because the trial could have caused problems, doesn't mean it should have been cut all together.

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 15 février 2012 - 04:32 .

[Balek-Vriege]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

There needs to be a thread where all the "It's only a Demo" people sign up and all the "I don't expect the full release will be much better" crowd sign up and then after the game is released the winning group gets to make an "I told you so" thread.

Examples of terrible lines:

Most of the lines are easily explained away.  I'm actually surprised by the ones you picked:

"We've gone over your mission reports and data you've collected, but it's all just theory to us." - Anderston to Shepard 

And that is bad why exactly?  Galactic leadership does not recognize Reapers existing.  It doesn't matter if Hackett or Anderson believe Shepard.  What counts is that Alliance Command and the Council believe him/her.  They have seen the evidence and disregarded it as theory.  "We've" and "Us" refers to the Alliance.  There is nothing wrong with that sentence even when it's taken out of context.

"We've gone over your mission reports and data you've collected, but it's all just theory to us." - Anderston to Shepard

"The Reapers?" "If I knew that-" -Anderson to Shepard after Anderson's conversation with Hackett who apparently has complete control of the Alliance's Navy says he'd stake his life on the fact that the Reapers were indeed coming not 10 minutes before.

Hackett doesn't have full control of the Alliance Navy, Alliance Command and the PM does.  Hackett is in control of mobilizing the fleets to meet an unknown force heading their way.  It doesn't mean it's Reapers and even though Hackett/Anderson (moreso Hackett) think it's the Reapers, Alliance Command is just beginning to come around to that idea.  Neither Anderson or Hackett are sure.  Shepard is more sure by the time he/she gets briefed by the committee.

"This isn't about strategy or tactics, it's about survival." - ...what? Let's all run around screaming and hopefully some of us will survive.

"This, this is your plan?" - really? Noooo, actually my F****** plan was for the galaxy to prepare for the last three years!

The committee is obviously shocked and scared out of their minds with that "This, this is your plan?" and their overall hopeless mood.  They acknowledge that Shep's answer was not what they were expecting and the hopeless nature of the comment wasn't lost on them.  Your reaction to that line is definitely natural, but is doesn't make the line(s) stupid when character ingame have the same reaction.  They thought the crazy Shep who was right all along would actually have a plan but Shep is saying what you're saying:  It's basically too late, we fight or we die and hope something comes up along the way.  That something being Shep finding a way to stop them of course.  If the Reapers hadn't interrupted the committee hearing I think Shep might have gone into detail.  Like "evac everyone you can and rally somewhere else."  They basically end up doing this anyways.

"People are dying!" - oh, the humanity! (we don't actually see anyone die... or anyone at all)

Use some common sense and critical thinking here.  We see the committee get totalled, a couple buildings blown up, ships destroyed, entire fleets wiped out, fire raining from the sky, lasers going off all over the place and mutant things everywhere but no one is dieing? Again how is this back writing save for you overeacting to the line?

"You knew the Commander?" "I used to."- Seriously? I wanted my Shep to punch Ash. Where did she get off being so high-and-mighty? 

First of all it's the military and the Commander would be jailed when he/she is trying to get some info on a possible Reaper invasion.  Punching Ash would not make sense and would be bad/childish writing.

   



Oh god I wish we could discus the leaked script more.  you have no idea how dam dumb the story gets later on in the game

You assume I haven't read the script and it came off more as a storyboard. I read some of it and some of the stuff was different than what was already in the leaked demo. Other parts, characters etc. were missing from it as well so I discounted it as rightfully being incomplete and stopped reading the thing. Now I have forgotten a good amount so I can actually enjoy the game.  I don't deny the story will be 99% the same (I like the story twists and think they will produce amazing jaw dropping scenes), but i'm not foolish enough to assume all that was there is all there is in game.

Even if it was 100% correct how can you get a good feeling for the game from what's wrtten down in a script? You don't get the visuals, sounds, mood, voice acting, context of the scene or the order of events. Tell me if you never played ME1 and just read the dialogue, would you really think it was that good of a game?  For example I know the Saren/Shepard dialogue on Virmire would be pretty cheesy without context.


I also don't see how your point relates to my rebuttals for those sentences being bad writing.  Seems to be more "Well I can't argue those points but I will invalidate them because "I" read the script."  The rest of the script doesn't matter in the context of my response and my points are still valid about the lines quoted.  I don't think they're bad and explained why in detail how they work.  Instead of just saying "Oh these lines are soooo cheesy and suck because I say so."

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 15 février 2012 - 04:32 .

[Weskerr]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm still a bit shocked at how popular the trial idea seems to be.

It's kind of simple really. You are asked to come to earth to be the star of a witch hunt. Would you want an opportunity to justify your actions?

  


The whole point of arrival was so the alliance could set shepard up so they could arrest him and steal the SR 2 from him . Its clear now Hackett was lieing in about a trial . there never was gtoing to be one at all . it was a plan by the alliance to make shepard pay for being resurected by Cerberus and working with Cerberus in 2 .

That would make sense if that were indeed the point of Arrival, but it's not. Hacket didn't lie. The introduction just didn't do its job.

Modifié par Weskerr, 15 février 2012 - 04:33 .

[FluffyScarf]

Guess the whole Mars and a trip to the Metal Phallus skipped your mind. And last time I checked, entire planets weren't under seige in ME 1 and 2.

Unless you're a Beth-****** who thinks Lagrim had a great opening.

[CerberusSoldier]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...


The trial and other earlier scenes could have set the stage and tone, recapped on past events, developed the situation, and built a personal and emotional attachment to Earth and the new people you meet, making the subsequent attack more devastating.  A good writer knows how to lay down a solid foundation before tearing it all down. Creating unnecessary and blatant story devices (such as the kid) in order to make people feel bad is a clear example of bad writing. Mass effect 3's into was dull and awful. You could cut the entire thing out and it would have made no difference.

You may as well have started Mass Effect 3 on the Citadel seeing as everyone already knows that the Reapers were going to invade Earth, showing it happen is  essentially pointless by your logic.

It could have but was obviously never planned that way.  The trial could have actually presented more problems and I know the very same people complaining about writing would be saying:  "The writing sucks. You guys condensed what should realistically be weeks of hearings into 3 minutes." "Answers in the trial seemed forced." "Why all the auto dialogue!?" "The appearances and tesimony of past squad members is sooo cheesy!" "The trial is way too long!  I have to skip through 5 minutes of convos to get to the action!" and the list goes on.  Not to mention new players could get lost real fast when going into so much detail about Shep's past.  Very challenging to implement but would have been awsome if done perfectly (and probably would have gained more critism regardless than the current intro).

What Bioware did do was make a streamlined intro to explain the basicsof both storyt and combat, leaving the details for later with Squad/NPC interaction on the Normandy.  The player and new players don't need to know everything right a way.  That's bad writing the same way writers give the player characters false amnesia so NPCs can explain away the plot of a previous installment:  "Don't you remember, we took on the Geth and killed a Reaper?"  Hopefully we see none of that in ME3.

The kid is a non issue.  If you saw a kid playing on a roof, an alien invasion occured, you tried to escape the city and met the kid again, tried to help him but he got away, got on a helicopter and saw the kid's evac truck get blown up by said aliens you would have reacted the same way Shep did.  It's your opinion that writing in the kid in was bad, but Bioware isn't hiding his purpose.  They already stated they did so to tug on player emotions.

  My rule of thumb is I play the scenes out in my head and how something would happen in real life or how I would have responded if I was in that situation.  If it works out the writing is good.  If it seems unrealistic or lacking common sense it's not good (like horror movie logic and staying in a haunted house when you just say a ghost).

You remember what they did with ME1?

Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed it down on ME2 and added more action.

Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed setting building out completely in ME3.

Tutorial Action (Earth) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have taken the time to add more detail to the intro. Most likely the reason why the intro was cut was in order to appeal to the FPS crowd or the incompitence of the writers.

   












what could they add to make us care. I will say this any one who was arressted under those fake ass charges hackett spoke of would be pissed off and mad as hell . As well angry over his ship being stolen from him . but no Shepard just acts like a robotic slave . when says and thats why they took away my ship . I would have had Shepard say who in the hell does the alliance think they are doing this to me . show some freaking emotion for god sake . They say we will learn about Shepard's humanity in 3 . from the demo its clear we won't

Modifié par CerberusSoldier, 15 février 2012 - 04:37 .

[AcidGlow]

I thought the lines were all really good. Besides the we fight or we die line I didnt really care much for.

[CerberusSoldier]

Weskerr wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm still a bit shocked at how popular the trial idea seems to be.

It's kind of simple really. You are asked to come to earth to be the star of a witch hunt. Would you want an opportunity to justify your actions?

  


The whole point of arrival was so the alliance could set shepard up so they could arrest him and steal the SR 2 from him . Its clear now Hackett was lieing in about a trial . there never was gtoing to be one at all . it was a plan by the alliance to make shepard pay for being resurected by Cerberus and working with Cerberus in 2 .

That would make sense if that were indeed the point of Arrival, but it's not. Hacket didn't lie. The introduction just didn't do its job.

  


Then were is the trial at . Why isn't Shepard being brought up on those charges . I am sorry but unless the trial is in the final game. I do not like the idea of a trial but since Hackett clearly says you will be called  to Earth to answer for arrival . I want to see it in the game

[FlashedMyDrive]

I think that they should start the game at the ending, because the story may be boring or too complex. That way, the player can experience all ME3 has to offer, without actually experiencing any of it.

[ArkkAngel007]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...


The trial and other earlier scenes could have set the stage and tone, recapped on past events, developed the situation, and built a personal and emotional attachment to Earth and the new people you meet, making the subsequent attack more devastating.  A good writer knows how to lay down a solid foundation before tearing it all down. Creating unnecessary and blatant story devices (such as the kid) in order to make people feel bad is a clear example of bad writing. Mass effect 3's into was dull and awful. You could cut the entire thing out and it would have made no difference.

You may as well have started Mass Effect 3 on the Citadel seeing as everyone already knows that the Reapers were going to invade Earth, showing it happen is  essentially pointless by your logic.

It could have but was obviously never planned that way.  The trial could have actually presented more problems and I know the very same people complaining about writing would be saying:  "The writing sucks. You guys condensed what should realistically be weeks of hearings into 3 minutes." "Answers in the trial seemed forced." "Why all the auto dialogue!?" "The appearances and tesimony of past squad members is sooo cheesy!" "The trial is way too long!  I have to skip through 5 minutes of convos to get to the action!" and the list goes on.  Not to mention new players could get lost real fast when going into so much detail about Shep's past.  Very challenging to implement but would have been awsome if done perfectly (and probably would have gained more critism regardless than the current intro).

What Bioware did do was make a streamlined intro to explain the basicsof both storyt and combat, leaving the details for later with Squad/NPC interaction on the Normandy.  The player and new players don't need to know everything right a way.  That's bad writing the same way writers give the player characters false amnesia so NPCs can explain away the plot of a previous installment:  "Don't you remember, we took on the Geth and killed a Reaper?"  Hopefully we see none of that in ME3.

The kid is a non issue.  If you saw a kid playing on a roof, an alien invasion occured, you tried to escape the city and met the kid again, tried to help him but he got away, got on a helicopter and saw the kid's evac truck get blown up by said aliens you would have reacted the same way Shep did.  It's your opinion that writing in the kid in was bad, but Bioware isn't hiding his purpose.  They already stated they did so to tug on player emotions.

  My rule of thumb is I play the scenes out in my head and how something would happen in real life or how I would have responded if I was in that situation.  If it works out the writing is good.  If it seems unrealistic or lacking common sense it's not good (like horror movie logic and staying in a haunted house when you just say a ghost).

You remember what they did with ME1?

Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed it down on ME2 and added more action.

Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed setting building out completely in ME3.

Tutorial Action (Earth) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have taken the time to add more detail to the intro. Most likely the reason why the intro was cut was in order to appeal to the FPS crowd or the incompitence of the writers. Just because the trial could have caused problems, doesn't mean it should have been cut all together.

Way to completely skip Mars.  The FPS argument is getting old real fast.  That only came up due to multiplayer (which is a blast, by the way), but now the whole game is being ruined by the FPS conspiracy.

I realize this is the internet, and folks are entitled to the way they present themselves and their opinions, but seriously...

Here, let me make it to where even the stubborn can understand: ME1 and ME2 were the build up to ME3.  It's war now.  Build up is over; done.  The **it has hit the fan, and there's no time for 20 questions when the Earth is being razed.  If I was choosing dialogue every other frame, the pacing would be horrible and I would be put off.

Example:  Saving Private Ryan opened with the Normandy landing after a silent intro...not much more building there than in ME3.  They opened up with the soldiers in the cattle chute, and the madness is everywhere as they try to take the coast.  Once that's past though, and they get some breathing room, the talking takes place and you learn about these men and begin to invest in these characters.  By the end, the deep narratives of the characters and the action are intertwined symbiotically, and sells the film by the conclusion.

[FluffyScarf]

Like in Dullrim? Which was basically an interactive tour guide for some European location. And don't bother arguing with FMD. The guy worships the ground Lagrim stands on like any Beth-******.

Not as pathetic as the ending for Lagrim. Dragon dead. Hooray. Next quest.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 15 février 2012 - 04:46 .

[Comrade Goby]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

I think that they should start the game at the ending, because the story may be boring or too complex. That way, the player can experience all ME3 has to offer, without actually experiencing any of it.

The ending is going to suck if the leaked script turns out to be true.

[Weskerr]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm still a bit shocked at how popular the trial idea seems to be.

It's kind of simple really. You are asked to come to earth to be the star of a witch hunt. Would you want an opportunity to justify your actions?

  


The whole point of arrival was so the alliance could set shepard up so they could arrest him and steal the SR 2 from him . Its clear now Hackett was lieing in about a trial . there never was gtoing to be one at all . it was a plan by the alliance to make shepard pay for being resurected by Cerberus and working with Cerberus in 2 .

That would make sense if that were indeed the point of Arrival, but it's not. Hacket didn't lie. The introduction just didn't do its job.

  


Then were is the trial at . Why isn't Shepard being brought up on those charges . I am sorry but unless the trial is in the final game. I do not like the idea of a trial but since Hackett clearly says you will be called  to Earth to answer for arrival . I want to see it in the game

That's a question you should ask the BioWare devs. There should be a trial. However, the trial apparently already occured, just ended, or has yet to occur. That's BioWare's version of a cop out or it's their pandering to a non-ME fan crowd who they want to buy the game.

Modifié par Weskerr, 15 février 2012 - 04:50 .

[FluffyScarf]

Add Weskerr to the list of Beth-tards. He probably worships Bethesduh and prays to them every night for the 'effort' they put into Lagrim.

[Balek-Vriege]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

You remember what they did with ME1?

Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed it down on ME2 and added more action.

Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed setting building out completely in ME3.

Tutorial Action (Earth) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have taken the time to add more detail to the intro. Most likely the reason why the intro was cut was in order to appeal to the FPS crowd or the incompitence of the writers. Just because the trial could have caused problems, doesn't mean it should have been cut all together.

Fair point but I think it wasn't to appeal to the FPS crowd, but to immerse the player into the world through action instead of drawn out dialogue.  If you can stagger background info with action to keep the player interested and continuously playing through the story you got it made.  That's what they're doing - They explain the bare bones of the Mass Effect universe from the opening scene to boarding the Normandy.  I don't think the trial was cut either.  I don't think they planned to have it in the first place in game.  I think your opening summary is mostly accurate but there might be some mistakes.  It's more like this:

Setting Building (Scrolling Intro Text) > Mass Effect 1 Logo (Marking beginning of game) > Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission


Setting Building (Scrolling Intro Text) > Setting Building (Cinematic) > Tutorial Play/Setting Building (Normandy) > Mass Effect 2 Logo (After Shep dies, marking true beginning of ME2) > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Setting Building (Scrolling Intro Text) > Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Earth) Mass Effect 3 Logo (marking true beginning of ME3) > Story Building Normandy (maybe) and First Mission (I think *spoilers* Mars) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

It be argued that ME3's intro is longer than the previous two installments.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 15 février 2012 - 04:51 .

[Gemini1179]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

what could they add to make us care. I will say this any one who was arressted under those fake ass charges hackett spoke of would be pissed off and mad as hell . As well angry over his ship being stolen from him . but no Shepard just acts like a robotic slave . when says and thats why they took away my ship . I would have had Shepard say who in the hell does the alliance think they are doing this to me . show some freaking emotion for god sake . They say we will learn about Shepard's humanity in 3 . from the demo its clear we won't

See, I STILL don't understand why Shepard would have gone back to Earth in the first place. It's like another one of those 'We've got to make Shepard stupid for a sec, hang on' moments. Not recording the conversation on Virmire (EVERYONE had omni-tools!), Horizon, the justification for working with Cerberus to Vasir, in Arrival once again talking to a Reaper and not recording it...

- If you were Renegade and a Cerberus shipper in ME2, you had no reason to go to Earth.
- If your Shepard was a Spectre in ME2, you had no reason to go to Earth, they have no authority over you or the SR-2
- If your Shepard was a die-hard Alliance shipper who wanted nothing more than to 'do the right thing' (at the cost of preparing the galaxy), then yes, you would have gone back to Earth.

We get no prologue compensation for either of the first two options I listed there.

And like you said, Shepard doesn't even really seem phased by being held by the Alliance except for that one line. Other than that, it's like just another day on Earth. 

Except that Shepard has been plagued by dreams of galactic destruction for years. Shepard has died once fighting the good fight. Shepard was thrown to the wolves and essentially disavowed by his/her 'allies and friends' when human colonies had disappeared leaving him/her to work with an avowed enemy of not only the Alliance and Council, but in many cases Shepard themselves.

Then they give Shepard the casual line "It's not so bad once you get used to the hot meals and soft bed." (or something to that extent) It's not even said in a sarcastic manner. The Shepard from the demo is unrecognizeable to me.

[FlashedMyDrive]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...


The trial and other earlier scenes could have set the stage and tone, recapped on past events, developed the situation, and built a personal and emotional attachment to Earth and the new people you meet, making the subsequent attack more devastating.  A good writer knows how to lay down a solid foundation before tearing it all down. Creating unnecessary and blatant story devices (such as the kid) in order to make people feel bad is a clear example of bad writing. Mass effect 3's into was dull and awful. You could cut the entire thing out and it would have made no difference.

You may as well have started Mass Effect 3 on the Citadel seeing as everyone already knows that the Reapers were going to invade Earth, showing it happen is  essentially pointless by your logic.

It could have but was obviously never planned that way.  The trial could have actually presented more problems and I know the very same people complaining about writing would be saying:  "The writing sucks. You guys condensed what should realistically be weeks of hearings into 3 minutes." "Answers in the trial seemed forced." "Why all the auto dialogue!?" "The appearances and tesimony of past squad members is sooo cheesy!" "The trial is way too long!  I have to skip through 5 minutes of convos to get to the action!" and the list goes on.  Not to mention new players could get lost real fast when going into so much detail about Shep's past.  Very challenging to implement but would have been awsome if done perfectly (and probably would have gained more critism regardless than the current intro).

What Bioware did do was make a streamlined intro to explain the basicsof both storyt and combat, leaving the details for later with Squad/NPC interaction on the Normandy.  The player and new players don't need to know everything right a way.  That's bad writing the same way writers give the player characters false amnesia so NPCs can explain away the plot of a previous installment:  "Don't you remember, we took on the Geth and killed a Reaper?"  Hopefully we see none of that in ME3.

The kid is a non issue.  If you saw a kid playing on a roof, an alien invasion occured, you tried to escape the city and met the kid again, tried to help him but he got away, got on a helicopter and saw the kid's evac truck get blown up by said aliens you would have reacted the same way Shep did.  It's your opinion that writing in the kid in was bad, but Bioware isn't hiding his purpose.  They already stated they did so to tug on player emotions.

  My rule of thumb is I play the scenes out in my head and how something would happen in real life or how I would have responded if I was in that situation.  If it works out the writing is good.  If it seems unrealistic or lacking common sense it's not good (like horror movie logic and staying in a haunted house when you just say a ghost).

You remember what they did with ME1?

Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed it down on ME2 and added more action.

Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed setting building out completely in ME3.

Tutorial Action (Earth) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have taken the time to add more detail to the intro. Most likely the reason why the intro was cut was in order to appeal to the FPS crowd or the incompitence of the writers. Just because the trial could have caused problems, doesn't mean it should have been cut all together.

Way to completely skip Mars.  The FPS argument is getting old real fast.  That only came up due to multiplayer (which is a blast, by the way), but now the whole game is being ruined by the FPS conspiracy.

I realize this is the internet, and folks are entitled to the way they present themselves and their opinions, but seriously...

Here, let me make it to where even the stubborn can understand: ME1 and ME2 were the build up to ME3.  It's war now.  Build up is over; done.  The **it has hit the fan, and there's no time for 20 questions when the Earth is being razed.  If I was choosing dialogue every other frame, the pacing would be horrible and I would be put off.

Example:  Saving Private Ryan opened with the Normandy landing after a silent intro...not much more building there than in ME3.  They opened up with the soldiers in the cattle chute, and the madness is everywhere as they try to take the coast.  Once that's past though, and they get some breathing room, the talking takes place and you learn about these men and begin to invest in these characters.  By the end, the deep narratives of the characters and the action are intertwined symbiotically, and sells the film by the conclusion.

It is about WRITING A STORY. Showing the scenes before the attack is about SETTING THE STAGE. Something that Bioware completely failed at.

A good storyteller can cause a reader (or gamer in this case) to feel emotion over a situation. Earth is being destroyed. Your home planet is being destroyed. Humans could go extinct. This is one of the most turbulent and pivotal aspects of the entire story. Yet, who cares? It's just some random city with random people. There is NO EMOTIONAL attachment. Would it be so hard to add something to the begining to add a bit of perspective and a feel for your suroundings? Appearently it is.

One of the biggest marketing campaigns for this game was "sacrificing" Earth to save the galaxy. How can the player sacrifice something if they don't give a damn?

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 15 février 2012 - 04:53 .

[ArkkAngel007]

[quote]CerberusSoldier wrote...

[quote]Weskerr wrote...
   

Then were is the trial at . Why isn't Shepard being brought up on those charges . I am sorry but unless the trial is in the final game. I do not like the idea of a trial but since Hackett clearly says you will be called  to Earth to answer for arrival . I want to see it in the game

[/quote]

You do answer for it, but not by trial.  Shepard is grounded and quartered at Alliance HQ Vancouver once he arrives in Council space, with the Normandy re-entering into the hands of the Alliance.

There was no trial, hence why Shepard is ****ed that this was done to him, and he wants to know why he is in the position of being a needed by the Alliance, but being kept from doing anything to be of any real help.

It will come up with Vega most likely, as Vega has been Shepard's liason/keeper with the Alliance since his arrest.  Expect some information from Hackett and from Shepard theirself with the VS/Romance characters.  A good story shouldn't have to always be spoon-fed.

[Gemini1179]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

Fair point but I think it wasn't to appeal to the FPS crowd, but to immerse the player into the world through action instead of drawn out dialogue. 

It's pretty clear you've decided that you are going to enjoy the game no matter what, and I applaud you for that, but it is rather clear that they've been curbing the franchise to appeal to the FPS crowd for a while now. I won't bother you again.

[Balek-Vriege]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

It is about WRITING A STORY. Showing the scenes before the attack is about SETTING THE STAGE. Something that Bioware completely failed at.

A good storyteller can cause a reader (or gamer in this case) to feel emotion over a situation. Earth is being destroyed. Your home planet is being destroyed. This is one of the most turbulent and pivotal aspects of the entire story. Yet, who cares? It's just some random city with random people. There is NO EMOTIONAL attachment.

The biggest marketing campaign for this games was "sacrificing" Earth to save the galaxy. How can the player sacrifice something if they don't give a damn?

There's no rule saying that's the case save for your own opinion.  Could the trial have worked?  Sure I would have like it.  Did Bioware go that route?  No.  Do I still think the writing is good in the context of the overall intro?  Yes, I do.

Gemini1179 wrote...

See, I STILL don't understand why Shepard would have gone back to Earth in the first place. It's like another one of those 'We've got to make Shepard stupid for a sec, hang on' moments. Not recording the conversation on Virmire (EVERYONE had omni-tools!), Horizon, the justification for working with Cerberus to Vasir, in Arrival once again talking to a Reaper and not recording it...

- If you were Renegade and a Cerberus shipper in ME2, you had no reason to go to Earth.
- If your Shepard was a Spectre in ME2, you had no reason to go to Earth, they have no authority over you or the SR-2
- If your Shepard was a die-hard Alliance shipper who wanted nothing more than to 'do the right thing' (at the cost of preparing the galaxy), then yes, you would have gone back to Earth.

We get no prologue compensation for either of the first two options I listed there.

And like you said, Shepard doesn't even really seem phased by being held by the Alliance except for that one line. Other than that, it's like just another day on Earth.

Except that Shepard has been plagued by dreams of galactic destruction for years. Shepard has died once fighting the good fight. Shepard was thrown to the wolves and essentially disavowed by his/her 'allies and friends' when human colonies had disappeared leaving him/her to work with an avowed enemy of not only the Alliance and Council, but in many cases Shepard themselves.

Then they give Shepard the casual line "It's not so bad once you get used to the hot meals and soft bed." (or something to that extent) It's not even said in a sarcastic manner. The Shepard from the demo is unrecognizeable to me.

The main reason to go back to Earth, Paragon or Renegade, is to prevent the Batarians/Terminus systems going to war with the Alliance/Citadel Space and the Galaxy being totally unprepared for a Reaper invasion.  And that line "It's not so bad once you get used to the hot meals and soft bed." is said in a sarcastic manner, at least by Femshep.

[ArkkAngel007]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

It is about WRITING A STORY. Showing the scenes before the attack is about SETTING THE STAGE. Something that Bioware completely failed at.

A good storyteller can cause a reader (or gamer in this case) to feel emotion over a situation. Earth is being destroyed. Your home planet is being destroyed. Humans could go extinct. This is one of the most turbulent and pivotal aspects of the entire story. Yet, who cares? It's just some random city with random people. There is NO EMOTIONAL attachment. Would it be so hard to add something to the begining to add a bit of perspective and a feel for your suroundings? Appearently it is.

One of the biggest marketing campaigns for this game was "sacrificing" Earth to save the galaxy. How can the player sacrifice something if they don't give a damn?

The stage is set fine.  I honestly don't know what can be done to have more attachment than watching the planet you live on now being destroyed.  The emotional side wasn't the strongest, but at least BioWare tried.  It's difficult to care for characters you don't know or know that they will make it out alive.

Really, what more perspective and feel could be added?

[FlashedMyDrive]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

You remember what they did with ME1?

Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed it down on ME2 and added more action.

Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Then they trimmed setting building out completely in ME3.

Tutorial Action (Earth) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have taken the time to add more detail to the intro. Most likely the reason why the intro was cut was in order to appeal to the FPS crowd or the incompitence of the writers. Just because the trial could have caused problems, doesn't mean it should have been cut all together.

Fair point but I think it wasn't to appeal to the FPS crowd, but to immerse the player into the world through action instead of drawn out dialogue.  If you can stagger background info with action to keep the player interested and continuously playing through the story you got it made.  That's what they're doing - They explain the bare bones of the Mass Effect universe from the opening scene to boarding the Normandy.  I don't think the trial was cut either.  I don't think they planned to have it in the first place in game.  I think your opening summary is mostly accurate but there might be some mistakes.  It's more like this:

Setting Building (Scrolling Intro Text) > Mass Effect 1 Logo (Marking beginning of game) > Setting Building (Normandy) > Tutorial Action (Eden Prime) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission


Setting Building (Scrolling Intro Text) > Setting Building (Cinematic) > Tutorial Play/Setting Building (Normandy) > Mass Effect 2 Logo (After Shep dies, marking true beginning of ME2) > Tutorial Action (Cerberus + Freedom's Progress) > Start on Main Mission

Setting Building (Scrolling Intro Text) > Setting Building (Cinematic)  > Tutorial Action (Earth) Mass Effect 3 Logo (marking true beginning of ME3) > Story Building Normandy (maybe) and First Mission (I think *spoilers* Mars) > Story Building (Citadel) > Start on Main Mission

It be argued that ME3's intro is longer than the previous two installments.

I can summarize the entire mass effect 3 intro in four words: Reapers invaded, Shepard left.

That is awful. There was no emersion, it was a shooting gallery on a planet you don't care about.

City was destroyed: Which City?
Kid Died: Who?
Council Died: So?
Earth is Dying: I should care because...?

Leaving Earth in shambles should have been a hard decision and an emotional one. Instead all we got was some piano music and a kid's shuttle being destroyed.

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 15 février 2012 - 05:03 .

[Carnage752]

Figures. All the people who aren't dicks are in the multiplayer forum. Meanwhile, the trolls are having a field day here. Ah BSN.

[CerberusSoldier]

Weskerr wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm still a bit shocked at how popular the trial idea seems to be.

It's kind of simple really. You are asked to come to earth to be the star of a witch hunt. Would you want an opportunity to justify your actions?

  


The whole point of arrival was so the alliance could set shepard up so they could arrest him and steal the SR 2 from him . Its clear now Hackett was lieing in about a trial . there never was gtoing to be one at all . it was a plan by the alliance to make shepard pay for being resurected by Cerberus and working with Cerberus in 2 .

That would make sense if that were indeed the point of Arrival, but it's not. Hacket didn't lie. The introduction just didn't do its job.

  


Then were is the trial at . Why isn't Shepard being brought up on those charges . I am sorry but unless the trial is in the final game. I do not like the idea of a trial but since Hackett clearly says you will be called  to Earth to answer for arrival . I want to see it in the game

That's a question you should ask the BioWare devs. There should be a trial. However, the trial apparently already occured, just ended, or has yet to occur. That's BioWare's version of a cop out or it's their pandering to a non-ME fan crowd who they want to buy the game.

  


Its clear they are pandering to the non Mass Effect fans with the start of 3 . I will certainly be very selective on what dlc I buy for ME 3 since arrvial was not exactly the bridge to Mass Effect 3 they claimed it would be

[MerchantGOL]

so u have to know every detail to be impacted by the hateful destruction being wrought, and you have to stop it?