232 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

Dont get me wrong I like Drew and most of the ME writing team. The writing in ME3 is not a problem, in fact a lot of the missiosn and what not were GREAT in terms of writing and the dialogue between squadmates was also awesome in ME3.

The problem was if the rumors are true, it seems the ending was created in a virtual vacuum with little input from the rest of the writing team.

Thats the issue.

[Harshfact]

Travie wrote...

kbct wrote...

zsom wrote...

So our original options were:
A - the reapers are actually the good guys and we've been fighting on the wrong side for 3 games
B - kill the reapers and potentially doom life as we know it

Yeah.. that still doesn't seem right. Not to mention the massive plot holes like why didn't they tell us about the impending apocalypse they are trying to avoid...

"Dark energy" isn't bad. The Reapers aren't good. They want to reaper-ize races to help combat the dark energy because they can't figure out how to do it themselves.

But what if the reapers aren't needed at all and the organic races could solve the dark energy problem themselves?

Yeah, i'd rather have an ending that was forshadowed for the entire series and actually plugs up plotholes.

A antagonist with a motivation that you can almost see as being right is 1000 times better than an 'hurr duur choatic evil' antagonist, or a nonsensical antagonist that feels like it was chosen at random (like we got). 

it goes agaisnt everything established in the first two game read my posts in the last  page

Modifié par Harshfact, 11 avril 2012 - 08:48 .

[Travie]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

b2smooth wrote...

Agreed!  The combat mechanics of the 2nd and 3rd game were far superior, but as far as the story and characters, Mass Effect 1 dominates the other two.  The relationships built in the first game are what fueled the entire series.

What? No. You built relationships in ME2, not ME1. Unless talking with Tali for half an hour about the Flotilla and killing some random salarian doctor for Garrus is ''relationship building'' in your opinion.

The franchise really got started with ME2. ME1 was just awful, both in gameplay as well as storytelling and characterization. I learned more about Tali and her people during one quest in ME2 than I did in the entire game of ME1.

Opinions opinions. With killing the salarian doctor you got to learn about why Garrus wanted to join you, as well as a huge amount of insight into his motivations that paned out in the later games and even got to guide him one way or the other morally (which unfortunately got cut in the streamlined ME2).

So yes, that is my idea of relationship building.

[Sebbe1337o]

kbct wrote...

Sebbe1337o wrote...

Oh right, THEY DID. That team is called Casey Hudson and Mac Walters...

I still find it amazing that only Hudson and Walters worked on the ending. No input from Weekes. No input from Drew. No input from the writing team.

Of course, after the release we have comments from Drew and comments from Weekes. Yet, no comments from Mac and no comments from Casey...

For me, I think anything vetted by the entire BioWare writing team would have been better than what we got, "dark energy" or no.

I agree, it's really strange.

[Dridengx]

Sebbe1337o wrote...
 This explaination is a lot better than "we kill you so you won't be killed by synthetics" etc...

Do you think it would be a better ending?

No, I don't. Because I actually understand the story. apparently, you seem to have trouble understanding the reaper's purpose. maybe you should play the franchise again

[Cainne Chapel]

Travie wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

b2smooth wrote...

Agreed!  The combat mechanics of the 2nd and 3rd game were far superior, but as far as the story and characters, Mass Effect 1 dominates the other two.  The relationships built in the first game are what fueled the entire series.

What? No. You built relationships in ME2, not ME1. Unless talking with Tali for half an hour about the Flotilla and killing some random salarian doctor for Garrus is ''relationship building'' in your opinion.

The franchise really got started with ME2. ME1 was just awful, both in gameplay as well as storytelling and characterization. I learned more about Tali and her people during one quest in ME2 than I did in the entire game of ME1.

Opinions opinions. With killing the salarian doctor you got to learn about why Garrus wanted to join you, as well as a huge amount of insight into his motivations that paned out in the later games and even got to guide him one way or the other morally (which unfortunately got cut in the streamlined ME2).

So yes, that is my idea of relationship building.

Travie i'll give you in ME1 you DO learn a lot about your team in a variety of ways.  However ME2 deepens that and adds more layers to the relationships you HAD with a lot of ME1 members, Notably Garrus and Tali, you find out more about Wrex and his motivations (he got stuff DONE in 2 years it seems) and so on.

While ME1 was great, I think ME2 deepend a lot of the personal relationships and also added MORE with people like Jack, Grunt, Thane, Mordin, etc who were ALL great characters in their own right.

ME2 also explained a lot more of the universe that couldnt be done in ME1 too.  You can still help guide him morally in ME2 as well.

[Travie]

Harshfact wrote...


it goes agaisnt everything established in the first two game read my posts in the last  page

I did read your posts, but I completely disagree. 

First of all, this is a very broad outline so the questions you asked may (or may not) have been answered in the original ending. From what we have seen of Karpyshyn's writing compared to Casey Hudson it probably would have been much more fleshed out than what we got, but we will never know.

[Travie]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Travie wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

b2smooth wrote...

Agreed!  The combat mechanics of the 2nd and 3rd game were far superior, but as far as the story and characters, Mass Effect 1 dominates the other two.  The relationships built in the first game are what fueled the entire series.

What? No. You built relationships in ME2, not ME1. Unless talking with Tali for half an hour about the Flotilla and killing some random salarian doctor for Garrus is ''relationship building'' in your opinion.

The franchise really got started with ME2. ME1 was just awful, both in gameplay as well as storytelling and characterization. I learned more about Tali and her people during one quest in ME2 than I did in the entire game of ME1.

Opinions opinions. With killing the salarian doctor you got to learn about why Garrus wanted to join you, as well as a huge amount of insight into his motivations that paned out in the later games and even got to guide him one way or the other morally (which unfortunately got cut in the streamlined ME2).

So yes, that is my idea of relationship building.

Travie i'll give you in ME1 you DO learn a lot about your team in a variety of ways.  However ME2 deepens that and adds more layers to the relationships you HAD with a lot of ME1 members, Notably Garrus and Tali, you find out more about Wrex and his motivations (he got stuff DONE in 2 years it seems) and so on.

While ME1 was great, I think ME2 deepend a lot of the personal relationships and also added MORE with people like Jack, Grunt, Thane, Mordin, etc who were ALL great characters in their own right.

ME2 also explained a lot more of the universe that couldnt be done in ME1 too.  You can still help guide him morally in ME2 as well.

I agree, ME2 is a great game in a lot of ways, even in character building.

I was just disagreeing that it was a vastly better game, ME1 did a lot of things well and some better. 

[Harshfact]

Travie wrote...

Harshfact wrote...


it goes agaisnt everything established in the first two game read my posts in the last  page

I did read your posts, but I completely disagree. 

First of all, this is a very broad outline so the questions you asked may (or may not) have been answered in the original ending. From what we have seen of Karpyshyn's writing compared to Casey Hudson it probably would have been much more fleshed out than what we got, but we will never know.

Disagreed with what ? i didn't state anything ! it is an outline but it's the basic premise and i hate to break it to you but it's very stupid and goes nowhere and makes no sense at all

[kbct]

zsom wrote...

kbct wrote...

"Dark energy" isn't bad. The Reapers aren't good. They want to reaper-ize races to help combat the dark energy because they can't figure out how to do it themselves.

But what if the reapers aren't needed at all and the organic races could solve the dark energy problem themselves?

Dark energy is destroying stars (at least in ME), how is that not bad? If the goal of the reapers is to stop dark energy from spreading then they are saving organic life. And if you allow them to harvest humanity then you are accepting that they are the good guys. The alternative is to kill them all in hope that you may figure out a different solution yourself. No guarantees though..

Evil would have been a better word to use than bad...

Yeah, dark energy is f'n up the galaxy. The reapers can stop it with the help of additional reaper-ized races every 50K years. Or the organic races can destroy the reapers and the dark energy threat and call it a day.

Modifié par kbct, 11 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[Sebbe1337o]

kbct wrote...

zsom wrote...

kbct wrote...

"Dark energy" isn't bad. The Reapers aren't good. They want to reaper-ize races to help combat the dark energy because they can't figure out how to do it themselves.

But what if the reapers aren't needed at all and the organic races could solve the dark energy problem themselves?

Dark energy is destroying stars (at least in ME), how is that not bad? If the goal of the reapers is to stop dark energy from spreading then they are saving organic life. And if you allow them to harvest humanity then you are accepting that they are the good guys. The alternative is to kill them all in hope that you may figure out a different solution yourself. No guarantees though..

Evil would have been a better word to use than bad...

Yeah, dark energy is f'n up the galaxy. The reapers can stop it with the help of additional reaper-ized races every 50K years. Or the organic races can destroy the reapers and the dark energy threat and call it a day.

That could technically be the best ending, but we sould more or less need another game for that. It would probably take some time to eliminate the dark energy threat after the reapers are destroyed.

[Sanunes]

I know people are desperate to show reason to why the game isn't to their liking. I really don't think this can be one, he left the same week the game went gold, so any argument against the writing would still have been done under his tenure of Lead Writer.

Modifié par Sanunes, 11 avril 2012 - 08:57 .

[silentassassin264]

I would have preferred Karpyshyn's ending simply because that is what I expected. It was obvious that the game was building toward something to do with Dark energy and human genetics being special and then it just went off on some completely different tangent leaving all those poor Chekhovs guns unshot.

[Il Divo]

Dridengx wrote...

No, I don't. Because I actually understand the story. apparently, you seem to have trouble understanding the reaper's purpose. maybe you should play the franchise again

Nope, the purpose is easy enough to understand. It's just a shame there is no logic there to support it.

[Travie]

Harshfact wrote...

Travie wrote...

Harshfact wrote...


it goes agaisnt everything established in the first two game read my posts in the last  page

I did read your posts, but I completely disagree. 

First of all, this is a very broad outline so the questions you asked may (or may not) have been answered in the original ending. From what we have seen of Karpyshyn's writing compared to Casey Hudson it probably would have been much more fleshed out than what we got, but we will never know.

Disagreed with what ? i didn't state anything ! it is an outline but it's the basic premise and i hate to break it to you but it's very stupid and goes nowhere and makes no sense at all

Obviously I disagreed with your premise that it doesn't make sense. 

It makes perfect sense. 

-The original 'reapers' find out that the galaxy is going to be destroyed by dark energy.

-They combine in a horrific way in a form that can survive the destruction.

-They find they cannot develop a solution themselves (other than hiding out in empty space) and begin 'reaping' other organics as a way of gaining more diversity and perhaps a solution down the line. 

There is a ton there that is unexplained, but it makes wayyyyyyy more sense than "huur duur lets kill you with synthetics so you aren't killed by synthetics' 

[Harshfact]

kbct wrote...

zsom wrote...

kbct wrote...

"Dark energy" isn't bad. The Reapers aren't good. They want to reaper-ize races to help combat the dark energy because they can't figure out how to do it themselves.

But what if the reapers aren't needed at all and the organic races could solve the dark energy problem themselves?

Dark energy is destroying stars (at least in ME), how is that not bad? If the goal of the reapers is to stop dark energy from spreading then they are saving organic life. And if you allow them to harvest humanity then you are accepting that they are the good guys. The alternative is to kill them all in hope that you may figure out a different solution yourself. No guarantees though..

Evil would have been a better word to use than bad...

Yeah, dark energy is f'n up the galaxy. The reapers can stop it with the help of additional reaper-ized races every 50K years. Or the organic races can destroy the reapers and the dark energy threat and call it a day.

I highly doubt that.. that's one of the other dumb thing about it. Reapers have reperised god knows how many races with shi*load of time and have got nowhere and now humans reaper gene can magically fix that ? or Shepard would be stupid enough to kill them and think "Screw fused species intelligence power we can beat them jsut by four species" i get that this is an outline but it screams bad

[Tazzmission]

this isnt trying to start a fight but i do recall 2 years ago people bashing the last me book drew wrote calling it garbage

i just think its funny they critisize one thing buy him and want him to do the ending

like i said not trying to fight but just showing how the bsn is the bsn really

[zsom]

kbct wrote...

Evil would have been a better word to use than bad...

Yeah, dark energy is f'n up the galaxy. The reapers can stop it with the help of additional reaper-ized races every 50K years. Or the organic races can destroy the reapers and the dark energy threat and call it a day.

The bold part was never in the game, or would never have been according to the post. The paragon choice would have been the one where you side with the reapers (self sacrifice, altruism etc. are basically what paragon is), they would not have given renegade players a perfect ending where you have your cake and eat it too... The renegade ending would have been the uncertainty of the dark energy threat.

[Travie]

zsom wrote...

kbct wrote...

Evil would have been a better word to use than bad...

Yeah, dark energy is f'n up the galaxy. The reapers can stop it with the help of additional reaper-ized races every 50K years. Or the organic races can destroy the reapers and the dark energy threat and call it a day.

The bold part was never in the game, or would never have been according to the post. The paragon choice would have been the one where you side with the reapers (self sacrifice, altruism etc. are basically what paragon is), they would not have given renegade players a perfect ending where you have your cake and eat it too... The renegade ending would have been the uncertainty of the dark energy threat.

Thats a pretty big assumption. 

You could easily turn that around and say that combination is the renegade choice because its more 'ends justify the means.'

[kbct]

Harshfact wrote...

kbct wrote...

Yeah, dark energy is f'n up the galaxy. The reapers can stop it with the help of additional reaper-ized races every 50K years. Or the organic races can destroy the reapers and the dark energy threat and call it a day.

Reapers have reperised god knows how many races with shi*load of time and have got nowhere and now humans reaper gene can magically fix that ?

There was something about the genetic diversity of this cycle being different from the rest. Maybe something comes from the synergy between all the races. I don't know.

I'm no Drew Karpyshyn so I expect his story would be much better. My point is there are plenty of options available if you go the "dark energy" route as planned by Drew, the lead writer for the much beloved ME1.

Modifié par kbct, 11 avril 2012 - 09:13 .

[addiction21]

Travie wrote...

Yeah, i'd rather have an ending that was forshadowed for the entire series and actually plugs up plotholes.

Other then the Halestrom mission where else is Dark Energy forshadow to slowly be consuming/destroying (or whatever its doing) the galaxy?

[Harshfact]

Travie wrote...

Harshfact wrote...

Travie wrote...

Harshfact wrote...


it goes agaisnt everything established in the first two game read my posts in the last  page

I did read your posts, but I completely disagree. 

First of all, this is a very broad outline so the questions you asked may (or may not) have been answered in the original ending. From what we have seen of Karpyshyn's writing compared to Casey Hudson it probably would have been much more fleshed out than what we got, but we will never know.

Disagreed with what ? i didn't state anything ! it is an outline but it's the basic premise and i hate to break it to you but it's very stupid and goes nowhere and makes no sense at all

Obviously I disagreed with your premise that it doesn't make sense. 

It makes perfect sense. 

-The original 'reapers' find out that the galaxy is going to be destroyed by dark energy.

-They combine in a horrific way in a form that can survive the destruction.

-They find they cannot develop a solution themselves (other than hiding out in empty space) and begin 'reaping' other organics as a way of gaining more diversity and perhaps a solution down the line. 

There is a ton there that is unexplained, but it makes wayyyyyyy more sense than "huur duur lets kill you with synthetics so you aren't killed by synthetics' 

Survive the destruction ? wait what ? why would they turn to repaer form to survive the destruction when there is no way to survive the destruction ? where the hell is this destruction ? if they an survive the destruction then why bother with coming up with solutions and harvestign people ? it makes no sense at all they had tons of time to investigate they had years before the destruction and could easily stop it from spreading by not using any relays or slowing it down and they were advanced .... it makes no sense t ojsut go "woo we're dumb let's jsut transform ourselves to giant killing Reapers "

[zsom]

Travie wrote...

Thats a pretty big assumption. 

You could easily turn that around and say that combination is the renegade choice because its more 'ends justify the means.'

True, you could interpret it that way as well. But look at the original article:
"The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a
way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left
before it consumed the galaxy"

It said you are trying to find a way to stop DE not that you actually stop it. And do you honestly think that they would have given two endings where one is essentially the same as the other only without any loss and sacrifice?