395 réponses à ce sujet

[Katamariguy]

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
1. sword team wiped out anderson order retreat.[/quote]

How is that a plot hole?

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
2. reaper zapped Shepard leaves leaving shepard to head to "beam"?[/quote]

You just hit him with a warship-grade cannon. It makes perfect sense to assume him/her dead.

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
3. in the dreams shepard has had he runs slow. he runs slow to the beam.[/quote]

Of course he's running slow, he's critically injured!

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
4. If it was the real deal you could shoot and kill the keeper.[/quote]

a) game engine
you could say that about every friendly NPC

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
5. Since when did the citidal get upgrades to look like parts of the shadoe broker ship and the collectors ship?[/quote]

Again, game engine, and efficient use of resources.

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
6. Where does TIM come from if there was no other intersection other than straight to the control?[/quote]

Look behind you, there are plenty of entryways.

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
7. M. Shields shoots shepard in the shoulde not the stomach. Shepard shoots Anderson in the stomach when Anderson dies Shepard is bleeding from the stomach.[/quote]

He could have been, you know, shot in the stomach by another enemy?

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
8. TIM has no interest in the control console.[/quote]

I would be more concerned with confronting my two foes, you know.

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
9. between the crudible and the citidal in dead space Shepard able to breath? ME1 at the end he needed a oxygen mask helmet to breath.[/quote]

There's almost certainly a mass effect field.

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
10. choice A: give in. choice B: give in and turn in a hush like a saren husk. Choice C: live and fight.[/quote]

That's while making A TON of assumptions.

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
11. in ME2 the beginning while saving joker in leaving the ship... Shepard has his oxygen mash helmet on. after the normandy exploded the oxygen was cut from the helmet and Shepard died entering a planet. You want people to believe that Shepard can survive an exploding Citidal that falls back to earth burying shepard and he is still alive?[/quote]

People are complaining that Shepard usually dies, they had to find a way to have him live.

[quote]Mars8309 wrote...
12. A,B,C choices leads Mass Relays exploding... leaving the question how does one help your allies to go to the home planets and beat the reapers there?[/quote]

You can't. Not a plot hole.<_<

[Amioran]

Gaiden96 wrote...
You know what? I'm not going to bother rebuking to your statements. If you can't see the issues when they are right in front of you I can't discuss this with you. If you're going to respond to my statements on WRITING with lines about how "YOU DON'T QUESTION GOD" (which the Catalyst ISN'T) I can't talk to you. Writing is the topic, not philosophy.

I tried to have a debate with you on technical grounds. To judge writing you must do that. We are not talking about opinions here.

"You don't question God" is a philosophical background ineherent in the theme. Why don't you study this type of literature so you can comprehend what I mean with it if you really want to have some knowledge on upon which to base your judgement? Or do you just want to be right because you say it?

As for "writing is the topic, not philosophy", do you really get what idiocy have you said? Writing and philosophy are irremediably mixed togheter. All authors (or at last those that write things a little more complex than tabloid trash) always refer to philosophical concepts on where to base the context of their writings. If the reader doesn't know them too bad, it's not the fault of the author.

Gaiden96 wrote...
So far you have given us nothing noteworthy of debate except your own assumptions and conjectures on what the ending means instead of what is actually there (which is exactly what this whole discussion is about).

If you like. I explained everything concretely. I even told you what's behind it. You don't want to hear nor see. Good. As it is said: "there's no worser deaf that the one who don't want to hear".

Gaiden96 wrote...
If you want to drop the "I am oh-so knowledgeablel" act and speak sense, we can finally talk about this the right way. 

I just referred you to the themse behind. This is the only right way to judge the thing in a coherent way. You cannot care only about what you want on judging something, you must have the full picture.

I never said that I know everything or that I'm better than you. I only tried to make you see that you lack some parameters for your judgement to be fair.

Gaiden96 wrote...
We offer actual facts, you offer theories and statements about how we "don't know", when most of us have throughly analyzed the endings to hell and back, and know what the hell we're talking about.

Theories? What theories?

All I've said to you are facts, it is only that they are the type you don't want ot hear, that's all. The philosophical background is as much a fact as it is a word in the paper.

Gaiden96 wrote...
Until you get off your high horse, we're not getting anywhere.

Why don't you instead try to mount the horse yourself instead of pretending me to dismount it? Walking is so tiring.

[Alex_SM]

lx_theo wrote...

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

There are LOTS of ways to end it without a deus ex machina using the elements provided by ME1, ME2 and the first 3/4 of ME3. 

Using a deus ex machina is just wrong, for any kind of story. 

[Wittand25]

Alex_SM wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

There are LOTS of ways to end it without a deus ex machina using the elements provided by ME1, ME2 and the first 3/4 of ME3.

Using a deus ex machina is just wrong, for any kind of story.

Name one.

The reapers as they were set up in ME1 and ME2 can only be defeated by a deus ex machina unless the developers would be willing to either change the whole game mechanics to a strategy game or put the actual defeat of the reapers into the epilogue and have ME3 end with the construction of an anti reaper weapon, (which would be both bold and consistent with the universe, but even more disappointing to the players).

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

1) A writing doesn't need to be consistent to be good. I don't get from where people get this assumption but it's completely erratic.

Writing doesn't need to be consistent to be good. In a comedy. In most other genres, people tend to laugh when you decide to crap all over your previous work. Kind of like if a Quentin Tarantino film suddenly turned into 2001 a Space Odyssey halfway through. Actually, if you're looking for a better example, just watch From Dusk 'Til Dawn and the sudden tone shift about halfway through.

[Tirigon]

No it is not good.

If you liked it, fine, but that doesnt make it good.

[BlacJAC74]

Wittand25 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

There are LOTS of ways to end it without a deus ex machina using the elements provided by ME1, ME2 and the first 3/4 of ME3.

Using a deus ex machina is just wrong, for any kind of story.

Name one.

The reapers as they were set up in ME1 and ME2 can only be defeated by a deus ex machina unless the developers would be willing to either change the whole game mechanics to a strategy game or put the actual defeat of the reapers into the epilogue and have ME3 end with the construction of an anti reaper weapon, (which would be both bold and consistent with the universe, but even more disappointing to the players).

Hmm, i wonder if that will get included in a weapon pack?

[Amioran]

mmm buddah23 wrote...
No the people that say the ending is good, just say it is good, and thats final.

There are both types in both ends, and the contrary usually those that say the ending is "badly written" are those that don't motivate it at all or then cannot have a debate upon it spanning for more than two sentences.

Naturally there are people like this also on the other side, but since A) they are a vast minority, they are much less vocal, just because they get flamed to no end etc. their percentual is much less than in the other case.

mmm buddah23 wrote...
People like me want more choices, hell the choices we were promised, we want more variety, which is what ME is all about, but sheeple like you just accept everything EA forces their game maker pawns to do, and will defend it to the death. And will stay online until their word is final. Wich i bet is what you will do.

I defend what is to be defended, not EA. Since (as it always happens, and yet you insist are not people like you that do it, funny) you have not brought any evidence to suggest otherwise and I didn't see you debate about this at all (because probably you have nothing to debate upon if not repeating "we don't have choices, we don't have choices, we don't have choices" ad nauseam without either caring the comprehend what others says or why maybe the thing it's not so easy) I don't know if you really refer to me as a "sheep" or you are just looking at the mirror pretending the face is of someone's else.

[Il Divo]

addiction21 wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

We are talking about a game which is released in 2012 with high budget, not a game from 2000. ME3 ending is rushed and has no depth.

Games in 2000 were rushed and had no depth. Hell most every ending to a BIoWare game is ****. "I am the good guy and I won!!!"

KoTOR and ME1 was nothing but "were you good or bad" and DAO (while great) was trivial at best. I feel like I am the only person that remembers how lackluster the endings to BIoWare games have been.

For someone thats been on this and the old forums for over a decade it was always the characters, the dialogue, the journery and never the ending that got chated up.r

Bioware endings have never been great (excluding Jade Empire and DA:O, in my opinion), but they've for the most part been  consistent in delivering the narrative. KotOR's ending, especially Light Side, was bland but I didn't find myself saying "Where the hell did that come from?". Likewise with ME1.

[Wittand25]

mmm buddah23 wrote...

Amioran wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
No sheeple are people who follow the trend without questioning, in this case, that would be the people who say the ending is good without question. Good job.

Never thought that it is the same thing with the exact contrary statement, i.e. "in this case that would be people who say the ending is bad without question"? Do you see more of the former or of the latter?

So have you actually buried your case without comprehending it?

No the people that say the ending is good, just say it is good, and thats final. People like me bring up the options and choices that were completely ignored in the pevious games, and hell, even in ME 3. People like me want more choices, hell the choices we were promised, we want more variety, which is what ME is all about, but sheeple like you just accept everything EA forces their game maker pawns to do, and will defend it to the death. And will stay online until their word is final. Wich i bet is what you will do.

So that the Krogan can end up anywhere from a rather positive future, to a place even worse then what they had at the start of ME1 does not matter ? That the Quarians die out is not a choice the player can make ?

I don´t consider the ending to be good, and wrote that as soon as I saw the first relaiable spoilers before launch, but some people here really go to unreasonable lenghts to find issues with the game.
Frankly al that needs to happen to have the ending fixed and to make it a worthy final chapter to the trilogy is adding DA:O style epilogue cards explaining what happens to the crew and th races of the universe and to give some explanation for some of the inconsitencies of the end.

[Wolf]

Amioran wrote...

*snip*

You speak based on "what-ifs" and "maybes". It's impossible to do this. You're not stating facts, you're using gibberish to confuse people by making them think you have a higher thought process or are more intelligent than others. 

It's ridiculous and says more about you than you realize. 

Regarding your "philosophy and writing are intertwined" statement, you are correct. What I meant, however, and what you seem to fail to understand, is that deus ex machina is the plot device in writing. It means, in case you, a self titled "artist and writer", that a specific situation/object/person came up in the middle (or in this case end) to resolve the plot.

It's not the basis for some sort of philosophy, it's a plot device in writing. It relies on mere chance, and as such doesn't suit things.

If this is what you meant by "you don't question God" that would be comprehensible, but still terrible writing. Story arc reffers to Shepard's story, and by extension, most characters associated with him/her. It wasn't meant to continue afterwards, at least not that we were told. An ending can be a cliffhanger in the middle of a story, like in between novels. If this is done on what was addvertised as the end of the planed trilogy it is generaly not very well received by the audience, as is the current situation. 

What I'm saying is not a rule in writing. It's what we were promised and didn't get. If this is what you offer your readers I can't fathom you being successful in any way shape or form unless your audience is the kind that disregards logic for cheap thrills and terrible, "dream-like" resolutions.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 09 avril 2012 - 11:32 .

[ToaOrka]

The main things that bothered me about the endings are...I can't say without spoilers.
The Normandy scene at the end I guess? There's no exlanation for how your squad got onto it, or why it flying away before what happened happened.
Also, there's really no closure or choice at the end. Shepard, who has normally faught every authority for his right to self determinate, is essentially given three versions of the same "choice".

[Hintofmalice]

Loved the ending... Loved the entire series.

Don't love the fact that they seem to have tossed the games claim to fame out the window. That is of course the entire premise that the game is what you make of it through your choices and decisions across the series. And namely, that those of you who didn't like the ending weren't given the chance to experience it on your own terms through your own decisions.

Even if the opportunity was there, I would have still preferred the current ending over any other. It's something that just drew me in and it felt "right" IMHO.

But my preference and opinion isn't the only one out there and it would be fairly narrow minded for me to think otherwise.

[Alex_SM]

Wittand25 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

There are LOTS of ways to end it without a deus ex machina using the elements provided by ME1, ME2 and the first 3/4 of ME3.

Using a deus ex machina is just wrong, for any kind of story.

Name one.

The reapers as they were set up in ME1 and ME2 can only be defeated by a deus ex machina unless the developers would be willing to either change the whole game mechanics to a strategy game or put the actual defeat of the reapers into the epilogue and have ME3 end with the construction of an anti reaper weapon, (which would be both bold and consistent with the universe, but even more disappointing to the players).

No, they are not. There are things called "plot devices", that can override any previous state if well introduced. 

For example: Using the crucible as a weapon (as it was introduced) which could interfere with the reapers, and needing EDI to activate it (super-IA with reaper code inside her, something the previous cycles seemed to not have), so she could switch off reapers shields and weapons, would not be a deus ex machina. It would use the elements the story provide to end it. No cheating. 

Another one: They could have said the Catalyst is the Citadel just because it's made of reaper tech, allowing the beam of the crucible (who is actually a superweapon developed trhough thousands of cycles) to focus just on reaper tech. Easy, quite mediocre, but MUCH better. 

Also I wouldn't had introduced the crucible as "hey, Shepard, here's the anti-reaper weapon!", but as a process of discovery, through a couple of hours of game, building it explicitly from previous elements of the story (dark matter, reaper code, info from collector's base and sovereign remains, prothean ruins, etc..) and using several missions to link everything. Simple: Spend half game discovering how to make the reapers weak, then while it's been built gather allies, then go to battle. At the end something goes wrong and it demands some sacrifice to fix it.

Basic rule: If you story requires a deus ex machina to end, go back and rewrite the story.  It's NEVER a good ending. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 09 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
Writing doesn't need to be consistent to be good. In a comedy. In most other genres, people tend to laugh when you decide to crap all over your previous work.

False. 

There are many authors that do it all the time and their work is probably the best examples of that kind of narrative. Ellis (more at beginning, later he commercialized), Ellroy, McLeary for some of the most modern, for a bit more in the past, Ginsberg, Patchen, Burroughs, Orwell etc. and even more in past:  Rimbaud, Artaud, Lautreamont etc.

Many different genres, not at all about comedy.
 

Il Divo wrote...
Kind of like if a Quentin Tarantino film suddenly turned into 2001 a Space Odyssey halfway through.

That is not because of the inconsistency, but because (in this case yes) it was badly written. He tried to copy (as he always did) Ellis only using Space and it didn't turn out well as it happened in the past. But that was not fault of the inconsistency, but of other things that have little in common with it.

It is easy at a first look to blame the inconsistency for the bad writing, but it's not so; the points that define it are different.
 

Il Divo wrote...
Actually, if you're looking for a better example, just watch From Dusk 'Til Dawn and the sudden tone shift about halfway through.

Again, there's nothing wrong with shifting. It all depends on how it is done, same as there's nothing wrong with a concept per se but it all depends on the execution of it.

Baudelaire wrote many poems about satan yet his complexity is a bit different than the typical satanist. The concept was the same, the execution is what makes the difference (and a great one at that).

[Il Divo]

Alex_SM wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

There are LOTS of ways to end it without a deus ex machina using the elements provided by ME1, ME2 and the first 3/4 of ME3.

Using a deus ex machina is just wrong, for any kind of story.

Name one.

The reapers as they were set up in ME1 and ME2 can only be defeated by a deus ex machina unless the developers would be willing to either change the whole game mechanics to a strategy game or put the actual defeat of the reapers into the epilogue and have ME3 end with the construction of an anti reaper weapon, (which would be both bold and consistent with the universe, but even more disappointing to the players).

No, they are not. There are things called "plot devices", that can override any previous state if well introduced. 

For example: Using the crucible as a weapon (as it was introduced) which could interfere with the reapers, and needing EDI to activate it (super-IA with reaper code inside her, something the previous cycles seemed to not have), so she could switch off reapers shields and weapons, would not be a deus ex machina. It would use the elements the story provide to end it. No cheating. 

Another one: They could have said the Catalyst is the Citadel just because it's made of reaper tech, allowing the beam of the crucible (who is actually a superweapon developed trhough thousands of cycles) to focus just on reaper tech. Easy, quite mediocre, but MUCH better. 

Also I wouldn't had introduced the crucible as "hey, Shepard, here's the anti-reaper weapon!", but as a process of discovery, through a couple of hours of game, building it explicitly from previous elements of the story (dark matter, reaper code, info from collector's base and sovereign remains, prothean ruins, etc..) and using several missions to link everything. 


Basic rule: If you story requires a deus ex machina to end, go back and rewrite the story.  It's NEVER a good ending. 

And to add to this, what makes something a Deus Ex Machina is how well it's explained (or rather, not explained) over the course of the story. Already, the Crucible was a questionable element by introducing it in the final act, but even there over the course of the story there's more than enough time to make it feel like a "real" element depending on how in depth the explanation.

Amongst other things, that's the problem with the Catalyst; it only exists to end the story, without offering the player any context. This would be akin to if Vigil only told us "Saren is evil, here's how to stop him", instead of actually explaining Ilos and the Protheans' role in stopping the Reapers. That kind of exposition puts the narrative in context and offers resolution. Mac's decision that we didn't need to know the secrets of the universe was one of his dumber decisions, given how the Catalyst was introduced.

[Alex_SM]

Amioran wrote...
Again, there's nothing wrong with shifting. It all depends on how it is done, same as there's nothing wrong with a concept per se but it all depends on the execution of it. 

Shifting the tone 10 minutes before the ending in a 100 hours story demands more than a perfect execution to work. 

[78stonewobble]

Il Divo wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

There are LOTS of ways to end it without a deus ex machina using the elements provided by ME1, ME2 and the first 3/4 of ME3.

Using a deus ex machina is just wrong, for any kind of story.

Name one.

The reapers as they were set up in ME1 and ME2 can only be defeated by a deus ex machina unless the developers would be willing to either change the whole game mechanics to a strategy game or put the actual defeat of the reapers into the epilogue and have ME3 end with the construction of an anti reaper weapon, (which would be both bold and consistent with the universe, but even more disappointing to the players).

No, they are not. There are things called "plot devices", that can override any previous state if well introduced. 

For example: Using the crucible as a weapon (as it was introduced) which could interfere with the reapers, and needing EDI to activate it (super-IA with reaper code inside her, something the previous cycles seemed to not have), so she could switch off reapers shields and weapons, would not be a deus ex machina. It would use the elements the story provide to end it. No cheating. 

Another one: They could have said the Catalyst is the Citadel just because it's made of reaper tech, allowing the beam of the crucible (who is actually a superweapon developed trhough thousands of cycles) to focus just on reaper tech. Easy, quite mediocre, but MUCH better. 

Also I wouldn't had introduced the crucible as "hey, Shepard, here's the anti-reaper weapon!", but as a process of discovery, through a couple of hours of game, building it explicitly from previous elements of the story (dark matter, reaper code, info from collector's base and sovereign remains, prothean ruins, etc..) and using several missions to link everything. 


Basic rule: If you story requires a deus ex machina to end, go back and rewrite the story.  It's NEVER a good ending. 

And to add to this, what makes something a Deus Ex Machina is how well it's explained (or rather, not explained) over the course of the story. Already, the Crucible was a questionable element by introducing it in the final act, but even there over the course of the story there's more than enough time to make it feel like a "real" element depending on how in depth the explanation.

Amongst other things, that's the problem with the Catalyst; it only exists to end the story, without offering the player any context. This would be akin to if Vigil only told us "Saren is evil, here's how to stop him", instead of actually explaining Ilos and the Protheans' role in stopping the Reapers. That kind of exposition puts the narrative in context and offers resolution. Mac's decision that we didn't need to know the secrets of the universe was one of his dumber decisions, given how the Catalyst was introduced.

Well even as an agnostic/atheist what ever...

If you're gonna have a "Deus Ex Machina" ... let it be the effin hand of actual god.

Then the faulty logic is backed up by being allknowing and my head hurts less of thinking about it.

[Alex_SM]

jreezy wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Using a deus ex machina is just wrong, for any kind of story. 

Not necessarily.

I can't think of any scenario when It may work. Except you are able to hide its nature. Then it's still bad writing, but your readers may not notice it. The same as a twist coming out of nowhere, it's bad writing per se, but if it's awesome enough maybe your readers didn't notice it's bad writing.

Something like the T-Rex final scene in Jurassic Park. That's bad writing, but most people don't notice it. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 09 avril 2012 - 11:49 .

[Wittand25]

Alex_SM wrote...
No, they are not. There are things called "plot devices", that can override any previous state if well introduced. 

For example: Using the crucible as a weapon (as it was introduced) which could interfere with the reapers, and needing EDI to activate it (super-IA with reaper code inside her, something the previous cycles seemed to not have), so she could switch off reapers shields and weapons, would not be a deus ex machina. It would use the elements the story provide to end it. No cheating. 
 

Since the plans for the weapon still turn up out of the blue, this does not change the fact that it is a deus ex machina, actually a even worse one since a critical compenent (EDI) would exist solely  by chance

Another one: They could have said the Catalyst is the Citadel just because it's made of reaper tech, allowing the beam of the crucible (who is actually a superweapon developed trhough thousands of cycles) to focus just on reaper tech. Easy, quite mediocre, but MUCH better. 

Again the very existance of the crucible make it a DEM.

Also I wouldn't had introduced the crucible as "hey, Shepard, here's the anti-reaper weapon!", but as a process of discovery, through a couple of hours of game, building it explicitly from previous elements of the story (dark matter, reaper code, info from collector's base and sovereign remains, prothean ruins, etc..) and using several missions to link everything. 

A single (convetional) weapon would not be sufficient so a conventional weapon would require the final victory to happen many years after the end of ME3 by a grey haired admiral Shepard ( I actually would like such an ending, even if I firmly believe that even more players would be upset by it).
Creating the the equvalent of the Crucible from scratch, while not being a DEM, would be even more unbelieveable and worse story telling considering that next to noone in the universe knows anything about the reapers and to construct such a weapon requires quite a lot of knowledge of the enemy.

Basic rule: If you story requires a deus ex machina to end, go back and rewrite the story.  It's NEVER a good ending. 

In that case they would have needed to rewrite everything that came after ME1 since after ME2 an ending (during the game, not the epilogue) without a DEM became impossible.

Modifié par Wittand25, 09 avril 2012 - 11:49 .

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

False. 

There are many authors that do it all the time and their work is probably the best examples of that kind of narrative. Ellis (more at beginning, later he commercialized), Ellroy, McLeary for some of the most modern, for a bit more in the past, Ginsberg, Patchen, Burroughs, Orwell etc. and even more in past:  Rimbaud, Artaud, Lautreamont etc.

Many different genres, not at all about comedy.
 

If these writers destroyed previous rules and ideas without offering a good explanation, it was bad writing regardless. You need a reason to support narrative alterations. And a damn good one at that. Altering an element of the story "just because" often doesn't go over well, especially when the audience either doesn't like the direction or can't see where the writer is going with it.

Consistency in this sense means sticking to the rules of the universe. If you establish that guns kill people, then people should not suddenly be able to survive gun shots to the head, without adequate explanation, which is the Star Child's problem.  

That is not because of the inconsistency, but because (in this case yes) it was badly written. He tried to copy (as he always did) Ellis only using Space and it didn't turn out well as it happened in the past. But that was not fault of the inconsistency, but of other things that have little in common with it.

It is easy at a first look to blame the inconsistency for the bad writing, but it's not so; the points that define it are different.

Except it was the inconsistency which was the source of the problem. He attempted to start a crime action thriller while turning it into an B-rated Vampire film about halfway through. If these writers you suggest could pull it off successfully, I urge them to rise to the challenge. I'm curious to see how From Dusk 'Til Dawn would have faired in their hands without resulting in hilarity. 

This is why I make such a huge point about consistency. The less consistent you decide to be, the more difficult it becomes to write it well, since you need to provide an incentive for the audience to follow your vision. 
 

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 avril 2012 - 11:53 .

[Fixers0]

The Ending was Good

Why?

[someone else]

No, OP - the ending was bad.

Bad because it is dramatically disconnected from everything that preceded it.

Bad because the writing was clumsy, forced, and unnuanced.

Bad because the writing itself is drastically inferior to that in the rest of the game

Bad, because the information on the reapers, however interesting, is irrelevant to the choices offered Shepard.

Bad, because the "choices" turn the protagonist into a mere foil for SpaceBrat.

Bad because the choices invalidate the fundamental theme of player choice.

Bad, because even Bioware has been forced to admitted it is deficient and needs "clarification."

An ending need not provide "closure" or cut off controversy or even lead to a happily ever after to be great (The Sopranos is a perfect example.)  Like it or not, no one ever argued that was crappy writing or a creative dodge.

Bioware' dlc needs to fix the ending - clarification will not cut it.   They have made it clear, however, that defending Casey and Walter's egos are the paramount values.

and finally, Bad, because it encourages the kind of intellectual dishonesty that allows mere opinion to pass as critical thinking, and shoddy workmanship, defective execution and bad writing to claim immunity as "art."

Modifié par someone else, 09 avril 2012 - 11:54 .