288 réponses à ce sujet

[Ticonderoga117]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Again, I say having an idea of where you're going is what makes a nice, wrapped-up story. If you solely let the wind guide you, you will eventually lose your way. That's not really a good thing in story telling, because you want to tell a story, not ramble...it's a story with a beginning, middle, and end...not a meandering journey without any definable end.

It's always imperative to be flexible to incorporate new ideas, though. Even if you decide to completely change the outcome of your story, you still have the foresight to do so...you don't write yourself into a corner, so to speak.

I think it depends on your publishing scheme.

Say, if an author gets a book deal to "Make books", go for it. Write a universe that has an initial state and just roll with it. Maybe create some small arcs, but otherwise it should stay rather focused on it's own accord. If you get sidetracked, re-write.

If you have a set "length" to work in, say, 3 games. Plan. Plan plan plan!

Just my thoughts, either way can work, just depends on the author/creator.

[mauro2222]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Killing your mother in self defense would have a profound impact on a person. Sorry to disagree with you. People seem to just brush this off and think that a person should just go back to business as usual. She got a lot of OJT with Shepard going after Sovereign, and you do a mission like that, you're never the same afterward. She saw horrors that most people who are "bookworms" never see.

She's highly intelligent and she saw there's more to life than just art and culture. That stuff became a hobby. She needed to earn a living, and she wanted to get to the bottom of this reaper business. That led to the Shadow Broker, Collectors, and Cerberus.

And remember she is 1/4 Krogan.

But haters gotta hate.

People do change in real life too.

Please don't lie to yourself... more to life than just art and culture? do you even know what an archaeologist does?
The earn a living is just in your head, the fact that she refused to help Shepard in ME2 contradicts your point of she trying to get to the bottom of this reaper business. Her obsession with Shepard led to the Shadow Broker, the Reapers had nothing to do with this.

We're discussing the bipolarity of Liara and the ridiculous change of naive and socially awkward archaeologist to ruthless experienced killer and Shadow Broker.

I can't believe you consider the 1/4 Krogan thingy something serious.
Nobody is hating Liara, we're hating her ridiculous change.

Modifié par mauro2222, 08 juillet 2012 - 11:39 .

[Fionn Marr]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

If you have a set "length" to work in, say, 3 games. Plan. Plan plan plan!

Just my thoughts, either way can work, just depends on the author/creator.

Agreed. Which fills me with complete and utter dread when I think of what they will do next.

With ME a comercial success the only thing we can expect is for EA and Bioware to milk the franchise for all it's worth. Which means an ME 4. And just like Star Trek and the utterly awful Generations movie they will be scared of making it without the central characters. Which means Shepard as the protagonist in the next game too. 

How will they do that you ask? The same way Ripley came back in the Alien series. They'll have a stupid excuse for the return of the Reapers, someone will find the research Liara did and then they'll clone Shepard - and God knows who else, and kick the whole thing off again. An utterly stupid idea.

Normally at this point I wake up in a cold sweat having just had this terrible nightmare. But hey, when the cash cow (ME) walks innocently into your backyard (EA) then you milk that sucker for all it's worth.

I proudly chose to shoot the God-Brat in the head. And I don't care if that ending is a thinly disguised swipe at all the fans who don't like the God-Brat or the endings.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was the only game which really had a good deal of concepting, planning, and artistic detail... and damn does it show.

I think ME 2 was very intricate, and I liked the way it improved on many of the first's strengths. Except for the planet scanning and myriad hacking minigames, I found it to be exceptional in almost every single way possible. The characters, some stock archetypes, were still substantial although a few were definitely more developed than others. Then, all those HUB worlds you could visit? Fantastic.

The third, in my opinion, suffers the most due to everything outside of the main plot and N7 missions being centered at the Citadel as fetch quests. If those were more properly developed, as well as issues pertaining to the resolution of the main conflict, I think I would've liked it better than the second. Scaling back the dialogue tree also hurt the game quite a bit. Then, there's the little variety you see in the differences of some of the more important choices you make as well, and the way EMS was implemented. Overall, I just think it was a bit obtuse, but otherwise something I still enjoyed experiencing; it especially succeeds in terms of cinematic execution.

They didn't improve the Mako, or planet exploration, the plot was far weaker, characters were many, and generally not very good. They ditched all the good, intricate ideas from ME1 and replaced them with trash like planet scanning. HUB worlds were okay, a bit too small for my liking. The Citadel sucked, though Omega was alright. Noveria and the ME1 Citadel were stronger I feel.

The Mako wasn't considered one of its strengths by most fans though, so they completely scrapped it altogether and later added the Hammerhead through DLC. Perhaps you felt the plot was weaker. I thought it way stronger, just less focused and more personal. The planet exploration aspect has been a polarizing factor; I liked the premise of traveling new worlds, but they were so... empty and in some cases, repetitive with the same find one or two artifacts then investigate vanilla merc or evil science base ad nauseum. Noveria and the Presidium were my favorite hubs of 1. I liked the more focused and diverse approach they took for the side missions in ME 2; they were linear sure, but they were diverse. Omega remains my favorite hub in the entire series. 

[What a Succulent Ass]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

+100 rivalry.

Laughed a little too hard at this.

[Urdnot Amenark]

nedpepper wrote...

Talking about this from a writing perspective, don't give me the whole "every great writer plans out every little plot point and then writes it." It's just not true. You CAN try and do it, but 9 times out of 10, the story will take a life of its own and change anyway. One of the biggest missteps I know about some writers is the obsessive need to over plot before they actually sit down to write. You often times end up trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

It's good to know where you're going, exactly as Mac said. You put those stakes in the ground, and then give yourself plenty of wiggle room. It's like writers who try and force the theme into a story where it doesn't really fit. If you tell the story, the theme takes care of itself.

That being said, thematically, ME3 seems very much the opposite of what Mac is saying. It seems like they had a theme they HAD to stick to and it ended up feeling a little heavy handed and forced. They tried to manipulate the story to fit their defined theme, and the result was an uneven experience. Then again, I don't know what it's like to write by committee, and that's pretty much how video games and even TV and films are made. And to be honest, the whole cliche of too many cooks in the kitchen applies to a lot of bad films, shows and games. But you also can get brilliant work out of this writing style as sucessful games and TV shows have shown. Bioware have done it themselves. But I digress.

Now that you put it that way, I definitely agree. I think if you play the default playthrough it's definitely a bit melodramatic at times.

[Biotic Sage]

Vox Draco wrote...

But even though I have no problem with Bioware evolving their story with every new game, I have a problem with the story past ME1 not feeling as if it evolved naturally.

Even though I can tell a story as I write it down and see where it goes, I should at least have some key points to focus on. If I introduce a threat like the Reapers, I should have an idea why they are there, what they want, and how and if they are stoppable.

The events in ME1 and how they are told usare very different to the last moments of ME3. The endings never feel like they are born from the story as a necessity. I mean, plotpoints like the Geth/Quarian peace even contradict the entire logic of Starkid, and that really makes me wonder if the writers knew what they were doing at times.

I don't get why people think that The Catalyst's assertion has to be a proven fact for it to be logical, and moreso I don't get why people think the Reaper's purpose and reason for existence is null if the Catalyst's assertion is in fact incorrect.  There is plenty of evidence throughout all 3 games that organic/synthetic conflict is an inevitability, such as the rogue AI on the Citadel in ME1, the Quarian and Geth conflict, and the Prothean Metacon war.  However, there is also plenty of evidence for the contrary, such as being able to have the Quarians/Geth make peace, EDI's development, etc.  The whole point is for the player to decide for himself.  The race that created the Catalyst made their decision: that the synthetic/organic conflict was an inevitability.  Even if that assertion turns out to be incorrect, I'm sure they had plenty of similar evidence that informed their decision, so it's far from illogical.

Even if the writers didn't have a clear idea of the motive driving the Reapers when making the first game, I think they puzzled it in nicely to the rest of the trilogy when it was finally revealed in the third game.

But for the love of god, I get so aggravated with people who hate the ending when the reason for their hate is: "STARCHILD IS WRONG!!!!  QUARIAN AND GETH!!!  I UNITED THEM!!!  THEREFORE THE ENDING IS STUPID!!!"  Fine, you united them.  First of all, that doesn't definitively prove or disprove anything, considering that they could eventually end up at war again.  Second of all, even if for some reason you DO believe that proves something, you are still making your endgame decision based off of your beliefs regarding synthetics and organics.  You have to use one of the options presented to you to stop the Reapers because it doesn't matter whether or not their motive is right or wrong, the fact is they DO exist and they ARE unstoppable conventionally.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 09 juillet 2012 - 02:46 .

[ld1449]

Biotic Sage wrote...


I don't get why people think that The Catalyst's assertion has to be a proven fact for it to be logical, and moreso I don't get why people think the Reaper's purpose and reason for existence is null if the Catalyst's assertion is in fact incorrect.  There is plenty of evidence throughout all 3 games that organic/synthetic conflict is an inevitability, such as the rogue AI on the Citadel in ME1, the Quarian and Geth conflict, and the Prothean Metacon war.  However, there is also plenty of evidence for the contrary, such as being able to have the Quarians/Geth make peace, EDI's development, etc.  The whole point is for the player to decide for himself.  The race that created the Catalyst made their decision: that the synthetic/organic conflict was an inevitability.  Even if that assertion turns out to be incorrect, I'm sure they had plenty of similar evidence that informed their decision, so it's far from illogical.

Even if the writers didn't have a clear idea of the motive driving the Reapers when making the first game, I think they puzzled it in nicely to the rest of the trilogy when it was finally revealed in the third game.

But for the love of god, I get so aggravated with people who hate the ending when the reason for their hate is: "STARCHILD IS WRONG!!!!  QUARIAN AND GETH!!!  I UNITED THEM!!!  THEREFORE THE ENDING IS STUPID!!!"  Fine, you united them.  First of all, that doesn't definitively prove or disprove anything, considering that they could eventually end up at war again.  Second of all, even if for some reason you DO believe that proves something, you are still making your endgame decision based off of your beliefs regarding synthetics and organics.  You have to use one of the options presented to you to stop the Reapers because it doesn't matter whether or not their motive is right or wrong, the fact is they DO exist and they ARE unstoppable conventionally.

Innevitability means that it cannot happen. The resolution of the Geth Quarian conflict disproves that BOTH times.

"Without us to stop it synthetics would wipe out all organics"

The geth beat the quarians then LET THEM GO then they made peace 300 years later (depending on Shepard of course.)

These two things prove that he is full of ****. To declare anything as "innevitable" is to be "full of ****" He's an AI he should know that 100% certainty is never possible outside of mathematics.

The race that made him didn't make a decision he harvested them they "dissagreed" and I immagine that was putting it mildly.

He is wrong because he claims an absolute certainty when there can never be one. Even if they did mannage to start fighting the quarians again, who's to say they will wipe out all organics? Who's to say they can? Who's to say that AI civilizations with full free will cannot dissagree? Who's to say they wont fight eachother with some siding with organics and others trying to wipe them out

There is no certainty. And he claims that its a complete innevitability. The varriables are so many and so incalculable that he would have needed the time frame of every single cycle to even have a hope to come up with a percentage. That's why he's wrong and that's why people are so freakin pissed.

[Eluril]

I wonder if when Homer finished reciting The Odyssey if people immediately started saying "Well you were just making it up as you go along, there's no way you knew what would happen in that story" as if whether a writer wrote it all in one setting or took a thousand years to finish a piece of writing is relevant to its quality.

I see this crap all the time and it literally applies to every fictional setting LOTR Star Wars, Star Trek Harry Potter etc etc.

It's a worthless geek debating point to say "well they didn't even know how it was supposed to turn out".

[Dark_Caduceus]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was the only game which really had a good deal of concepting, planning, and artistic detail... and damn does it show.

I think ME 2 was very intricate, and I liked the way it improved on many of the first's strengths. Except for the planet scanning and myriad hacking minigames, I found it to be exceptional in almost every single way possible. The characters, some stock archetypes, were still substantial although a few were definitely more developed than others. Then, all those HUB worlds you could visit? Fantastic.

The third, in my opinion, suffers the most due to everything outside of the main plot and N7 missions being centered at the Citadel as fetch quests. If those were more properly developed, as well as issues pertaining to the resolution of the main conflict, I think I would've liked it better than the second. Scaling back the dialogue tree also hurt the game quite a bit. Then, there's the little variety you see in the differences of some of the more important choices you make as well, and the way EMS was implemented. Overall, I just think it was a bit obtuse, but otherwise something I still enjoyed experiencing; it especially succeeds in terms of cinematic execution.

They didn't improve the Mako, or planet exploration, the plot was far weaker, characters were many, and generally not very good. They ditched all the good, intricate ideas from ME1 and replaced them with trash like planet scanning. HUB worlds were okay, a bit too small for my liking. The Citadel sucked, though Omega was alright. Noveria and the ME1 Citadel were stronger I feel.

The Mako wasn't considered one of its strengths by most fans though, so they completely scrapped it altogether and later added the Hammerhead through DLC. Perhaps you felt the plot was weaker. I thought it way stronger, just less focused and more personal. The planet exploration aspect has been a polarizing factor; I liked the premise of traveling new worlds, but they were so... empty and in some cases, repetitive with the same find one or two artifacts then investigate vanilla merc or evil science base ad nauseum. Noveria and the Presidium were my favorite hubs of 1. I liked the more focused and diverse approach they took for the side missions in ME 2; they were linear sure, but they were diverse. Omega remains my favorite hub in the entire series. 

As a sequel it failed miserably because it really has no logical synthesis with 1 or 2. People like it because of the fan service and the relatively well done characters, hell it might even be a good stand-alone title. But as a sequel to Mass Effect 1 it's pretty damn useless.

How can the side quests in ME2 be more "focused" whilst simultaneously being more "diverse"? The planet exploration and Mako were strengths, though nobody seems to acknowledge them. The potential was there, they had an excellent foundation set up in ME1, but instead of expanding and perfecting conepts like planet exploration or the Mako they "streamlines" them into retarded variants like planet scanning and the Hammerhead.

And look what we have to show for it? Mass Effect 3, terrible endings and all.

[What a Succulent Ass]

I have enjoyed Harry Potter back in the days, but it had a really predictable story and there would be no way that Harry would have lost or even died

IIRC, he was originally going to die.

[NedPepper]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was the only game which really had a good deal of concepting, planning, and artistic detail... and damn does it show.

I think ME 2 was very intricate, and I liked the way it improved on many of the first's strengths. Except for the planet scanning and myriad hacking minigames, I found it to be exceptional in almost every single way possible. The characters, some stock archetypes, were still substantial although a few were definitely more developed than others. Then, all those HUB worlds you could visit? Fantastic.

The third, in my opinion, suffers the most due to everything outside of the main plot and N7 missions being centered at the Citadel as fetch quests. If those were more properly developed, as well as issues pertaining to the resolution of the main conflict, I think I would've liked it better than the second. Scaling back the dialogue tree also hurt the game quite a bit. Then, there's the little variety you see in the differences of some of the more important choices you make as well, and the way EMS was implemented. Overall, I just think it was a bit obtuse, but otherwise something I still enjoyed experiencing; it especially succeeds in terms of cinematic execution.

They didn't improve the Mako, or planet exploration, the plot was far weaker, characters were many, and generally not very good. They ditched all the good, intricate ideas from ME1 and replaced them with trash like planet scanning. HUB worlds were okay, a bit too small for my liking. The Citadel sucked, though Omega was alright. Noveria and the ME1 Citadel were stronger I feel.

The Mako wasn't considered one of its strengths by most fans though, so they completely scrapped it altogether and later added the Hammerhead through DLC. Perhaps you felt the plot was weaker. I thought it way stronger, just less focused and more personal. The planet exploration aspect has been a polarizing factor; I liked the premise of traveling new worlds, but they were so... empty and in some cases, repetitive with the same find one or two artifacts then investigate vanilla merc or evil science base ad nauseum. Noveria and the Presidium were my favorite hubs of 1. I liked the more focused and diverse approach they took for the side missions in ME 2; they were linear sure, but they were diverse. Omega remains my favorite hub in the entire series. 

As a sequel it failed miserably because it really has no logical synthesis with 1 or 2. People like it because of the fan service and the relatively well done characters, hell it might even be a good stand-alone title. But as a sequel to Mass Effect 1 it's pretty damn useless.

How can the side quests in ME2 be more "focused" whilst simultaneously being more "diverse"? The planet exploration and Mako were strengths, though nobody seems to acknowledge them. The potential was there, they had an excellent foundation set up in ME1, but instead of expanding and perfecting conepts like planet exploration or the Mako they "streamlines" them into retarded variants like planet scanning and the Hammerhead.

And look what we have to show for it? Mass Effect 3, terrible endings and all.

Re: The Mako.  It was an interesting for about two or three planets.  And then it got really old.  I mean, quit playing old.  I bought Mass Effect 1, played about half of the game, and quit.  I eventually went back and finished it, but that was only because I had bought Mass Effect 2 after playing Dragon Age: Origins, and hearing the buzz.  The story part of the first game is incredibly short, to be honest.  But when you get bogged down in that damn Mako, looking for every little artifact...it detracted completely from what turned out to be a really brilliant story.  It's weird.  When I first bought Mass Effect, the original, I was thinking Bioware and KOTR, this will be a blast.  But the Mako and the aimless driving around planets with big mountains killed my enthusiam.  I'm glad I went back.  You can thank Dragon Age for that.  And, well, Mass Effect 2. 

[Urdnot Amenark]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was the only game which really had a good deal of concepting, planning, and artistic detail... and damn does it show.

I think ME 2 was very intricate, and I liked the way it improved on many of the first's strengths. Except for the planet scanning and myriad hacking minigames, I found it to be exceptional in almost every single way possible. The characters, some stock archetypes, were still substantial although a few were definitely more developed than others. Then, all those HUB worlds you could visit? Fantastic.

The third, in my opinion, suffers the most due to everything outside of the main plot and N7 missions being centered at the Citadel as fetch quests. If those were more properly developed, as well as issues pertaining to the resolution of the main conflict, I think I would've liked it better than the second. Scaling back the dialogue tree also hurt the game quite a bit. Then, there's the little variety you see in the differences of some of the more important choices you make as well, and the way EMS was implemented. Overall, I just think it was a bit obtuse, but otherwise something I still enjoyed experiencing; it especially succeeds in terms of cinematic execution.

They didn't improve the Mako, or planet exploration, the plot was far weaker, characters were many, and generally not very good. They ditched all the good, intricate ideas from ME1 and replaced them with trash like planet scanning. HUB worlds were okay, a bit too small for my liking. The Citadel sucked, though Omega was alright. Noveria and the ME1 Citadel were stronger I feel.

The Mako wasn't considered one of its strengths by most fans though, so they completely scrapped it altogether and later added the Hammerhead through DLC. Perhaps you felt the plot was weaker. I thought it way stronger, just less focused and more personal. The planet exploration aspect has been a polarizing factor; I liked the premise of traveling new worlds, but they were so... empty and in some cases, repetitive with the same find one or two artifacts then investigate vanilla merc or evil science base ad nauseum. Noveria and the Presidium were my favorite hubs of 1. I liked the more focused and diverse approach they took for the side missions in ME 2; they were linear sure, but they were diverse. Omega remains my favorite hub in the entire series. 

As a sequel it failed miserably because it really has no logical synthesis with 1 or 2. People like it because of the fan service and the relatively well done characters, hell it might even be a good stand-alone title. But as a sequel to Mass Effect 1 it's pretty damn useless.

How can the side quests in ME2 be more "focused" whilst simultaneously being more "diverse"? The planet exploration and Mako were strengths, though nobody seems to acknowledge them. The potential was there, they had an excellent foundation set up in ME1, but instead of expanding and perfecting conepts like planet exploration or the Mako they "streamlines" them into retarded variants like planet scanning and the Hammerhead.

And look what we have to show for it? Mass Effect 3, terrible endings and all.

Well, the main reason 3 doesn't feel as connected to 2 is because of all the stories happening between 2 and 3 that were referenced. I do agree the overarching themes of the story - the Reapers especially - are literally written in a fashion contradictory to what the lore had previously established to make the Crucible Macguffin fit into the story. 

ME 2 is more focused in that you don't end up searching aimlessly for items and other minutiae as each has a clear objective and environment that facilitates it; in essence they're fairly linear. They're more "diverse" because each experience varies somewhat and offers a variety of scenarios, especially in terms of the set pieces so you don't get the repetitiveness of the first game. The Firewalker DLC had some decent albeit boring missions, but they implemented the Hammerhead well in Overlord. Planet scanning was my largest qualm with the game, although the patch they released has made the radar way faster. 

As for 3 I don't think the endings were terrible in and of themselves, just terribly executed and lacking in the significant variety they boasted they'd have, but that's a horse that's been beaten dead, revived via Lazarus, and beaten to death again.

[Urdnot Amenark]

nedpepper wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was the only game which really had a good deal of concepting, planning, and artistic detail... and damn does it show.

I think ME 2 was very intricate, and I liked the way it improved on many of the first's strengths. Except for the planet scanning and myriad hacking minigames, I found it to be exceptional in almost every single way possible. The characters, some stock archetypes, were still substantial although a few were definitely more developed than others. Then, all those HUB worlds you could visit? Fantastic.

The third, in my opinion, suffers the most due to everything outside of the main plot and N7 missions being centered at the Citadel as fetch quests. If those were more properly developed, as well as issues pertaining to the resolution of the main conflict, I think I would've liked it better than the second. Scaling back the dialogue tree also hurt the game quite a bit. Then, there's the little variety you see in the differences of some of the more important choices you make as well, and the way EMS was implemented. Overall, I just think it was a bit obtuse, but otherwise something I still enjoyed experiencing; it especially succeeds in terms of cinematic execution.

They didn't improve the Mako, or planet exploration, the plot was far weaker, characters were many, and generally not very good. They ditched all the good, intricate ideas from ME1 and replaced them with trash like planet scanning. HUB worlds were okay, a bit too small for my liking. The Citadel sucked, though Omega was alright. Noveria and the ME1 Citadel were stronger I feel.

The Mako wasn't considered one of its strengths by most fans though, so they completely scrapped it altogether and later added the Hammerhead through DLC. Perhaps you felt the plot was weaker. I thought it way stronger, just less focused and more personal. The planet exploration aspect has been a polarizing factor; I liked the premise of traveling new worlds, but they were so... empty and in some cases, repetitive with the same find one or two artifacts then investigate vanilla merc or evil science base ad nauseum. Noveria and the Presidium were my favorite hubs of 1. I liked the more focused and diverse approach they took for the side missions in ME 2; they were linear sure, but they were diverse. Omega remains my favorite hub in the entire series. 

As a sequel it failed miserably because it really has no logical synthesis with 1 or 2. People like it because of the fan service and the relatively well done characters, hell it might even be a good stand-alone title. But as a sequel to Mass Effect 1 it's pretty damn useless.

How can the side quests in ME2 be more "focused" whilst simultaneously being more "diverse"? The planet exploration and Mako were strengths, though nobody seems to acknowledge them. The potential was there, they had an excellent foundation set up in ME1, but instead of expanding and perfecting conepts like planet exploration or the Mako they "streamlines" them into retarded variants like planet scanning and the Hammerhead.

And look what we have to show for it? Mass Effect 3, terrible endings and all.

Re: The Mako.  It was an interesting for about two or three planets.  And then it got really old.  I mean, quit playing old.  I bought Mass Effect 1, played about half of the game, and quit.  I eventually went back and finished it, but that was only because I had bought Mass Effect 2 after playing Dragon Age: Origins, and hearing the buzz.  The story part of the first game is incredibly short, to be honest.  But when you get bogged down in that damn Mako, looking for every little artifact...it detracted completely from what turned out to be a really brilliant story.  It's weird.  When I first bought Mass Effect, the original, I was thinking Bioware and KOTR, this will be a blast.  But the Mako and the aimless driving around planets with big mountains killed my enthusiam.  I'm glad I went back.  You can thank Dragon Age for that.  And, well, Mass Effect 2. 

Yeah, the Mako really stretched out the playing time, but one could say that was their way of giving the player lot's to do, and as slow as that thing moved, it most certainly felt like it! I like that they referenced the problems of both the Mako and the Hammerhead in that conversation between Cortez and Vega. Now I especially have nostalgia regarding those excruciatingly difficult climbs up mountains, trying to inch my way to a spot that wasn't too steep - I literally spent ten minutes trying to do this once - so I wouldn't have to drive all the way around the spot I wanted to go. I like that they actually made those side quests worthwhile by making them assets that you earned if you transferred your save. 

[-Skorpious-]

I've known about this for months now, but it still makes me shake my head. Naturally, some things often must be improvised during development - character interaction and development, sidequests, level-design (ect.), but major plot points (in this case the Collector Base, Cerberus, the Crucible and the Catalyst, man Bioware sure does love the letter C) should have been at least premeditated to some extent.

But alas, we ended up with a sequel that was nothing but pointless filler and a conclusion reliant on TWO Deus Ex Machina to even function properly.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 09 juillet 2012 - 01:34 .

[nitefyre410]

mauro2222 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Killing your mother in self defense would have a profound impact on a person. Sorry to disagree with you. People seem to just brush this off and think that a person should just go back to business as usual. She got a lot of OJT with Shepard going after Sovereign, and you do a mission like that, you're never the same afterward. She saw horrors that most people who are "bookworms" never see.

She's highly intelligent and she saw there's more to life than just art and culture. That stuff became a hobby. She needed to earn a living, and she wanted to get to the bottom of this reaper business. That led to the Shadow Broker, Collectors, and Cerberus.

And remember she is 1/4 Krogan.

But haters gotta hate.

People do change in real life too.

Please don't lie to yourself... more to life than just art and culture? do you even know what an archaeologist does?
The earn a living is just in your head, the fact that she refused to help Shepard in ME2 contradicts your point of she trying to get to the bottom of this reaper business. Her obsession with Shepard led to the Shadow Broker, the Reapers had nothing to do with this.

We're discussing the bipolarity of Liara and the ridiculous change of naive and socially awkward archaeologist to ruthless experienced killer and Shadow Broker.

I can't believe you consider the 1/4 Krogan thingy something serious.
Nobody is hating Liara, we're hating her ridiculous change.

 

You do  know there is a perfect good explaination for why  Liara change does not make sense.. 

Poorly executed time skip. 

Kiling Shepard to start time skip was the the dumbest thing that could have done.   

But Bioware does great character development... right? 

[Biotic Sage]

ld1449 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...


I don't get why people think that The Catalyst's assertion has to be a proven fact for it to be logical, and moreso I don't get why people think the Reaper's purpose and reason for existence is null if the Catalyst's assertion is in fact incorrect.  There is plenty of evidence throughout all 3 games that organic/synthetic conflict is an inevitability, such as the rogue AI on the Citadel in ME1, the Quarian and Geth conflict, and the Prothean Metacon war.  However, there is also plenty of evidence for the contrary, such as being able to have the Quarians/Geth make peace, EDI's development, etc.  The whole point is for the player to decide for himself.  The race that created the Catalyst made their decision: that the synthetic/organic conflict was an inevitability.  Even if that assertion turns out to be incorrect, I'm sure they had plenty of similar evidence that informed their decision, so it's far from illogical.

Even if the writers didn't have a clear idea of the motive driving the Reapers when making the first game, I think they puzzled it in nicely to the rest of the trilogy when it was finally revealed in the third game.

But for the love of god, I get so aggravated with people who hate the ending when the reason for their hate is: "STARCHILD IS WRONG!!!!  QUARIAN AND GETH!!!  I UNITED THEM!!!  THEREFORE THE ENDING IS STUPID!!!"  Fine, you united them.  First of all, that doesn't definitively prove or disprove anything, considering that they could eventually end up at war again.  Second of all, even if for some reason you DO believe that proves something, you are still making your endgame decision based off of your beliefs regarding synthetics and organics.  You have to use one of the options presented to you to stop the Reapers because it doesn't matter whether or not their motive is right or wrong, the fact is they DO exist and they ARE unstoppable conventionally.

Innevitability means that it cannot happen. The resolution of the Geth Quarian conflict disproves that BOTH times.

"Without us to stop it synthetics would wipe out all organics"

The geth beat the quarians then LET THEM GO then they made peace 300 years later (depending on Shepard of course.)

These two things prove that he is full of ****. To declare anything as "innevitable" is to be "full of ****" He's an AI he should know that 100% certainty is never possible outside of mathematics.

The race that made him didn't make a decision he harvested them they "dissagreed" and I immagine that was putting it mildly.

He is wrong because he claims an absolute certainty when there can never be one. Even if they did mannage to start fighting the quarians again, who's to say they will wipe out all organics? Who's to say they can? Who's to say that AI civilizations with full free will cannot dissagree? Who's to say they wont fight eachother with some siding with organics and others trying to wipe them out

There is no certainty. And he claims that its a complete innevitability. The varriables are so many and so incalculable that he would have needed the time frame of every single cycle to even have a hope to come up with a percentage. That's why he's wrong and that's why people are so freakin pissed.

Sir, you are again arguing the very thing that I addressed in my post that you quoted.  The Catalyst was created to solve a perceived problem: that synthetic/organic conflict is inevitable.  It operates under these parameters.  Just because it is a perceived problem, doesn't mean the problem actually exists.  The race that created the Catalyst perceived this problem, so it is a completely moot point whether or not the assertion of "synthetics will inevitably destroy organics" is correct or not.  You have to deal with this AI and its army of Reapers because they exist and if you don't deal with them they will continue to reap and be ass holes in general. 

And, again: Just because the Quarians and the Geth happen to be at peace AT THE MOMENT, does not prove that the eventual destruction of organics at the hand of synthetics isn't an inevitability.  Maybe it lasts for 10 years, maybe 10,000, but if something happens eventually that leads to the Geth wiping out all organics even after 100000000 years of peace, then the Catalyst still has a point.

[Kunari801]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Not planning a story completely out ahead of time is not in and of itself a bad thing. Plenty of professional writers "go where the story takes them." Outlining the entire skeleton of a narrative isn't the ONLY way to tell stories, and many of my favorite writers don't do it that way. The key thing here though is to build upon the already established narrative. As long as a writer builds upon and stays consistent with the established narrative in previous intallments, or even within the same text, then that is a perfectly legitimate storytelling process.

Agreed, the disconnect is where the ME Lore in ME1 and ME2 was taking the players vs the developers.  

I've said it before, but I think they were too married to the idea of Mass Effect being a trilogy to see that they had TOO MUCH story left to tell to fit into one game.   

[Kel Riever]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Sometimes, you have to talk to a company like it is a little child.  Metaphor completely intended.  Nice pic!

[Drake-Shepard]

making it up as you go along = artistic integrity

[RydeCrash]

While talking to Javik he details the Synthetics / Organics of his cycle. He states that a race whom was physically weak created synthetics to help them. The synthetics where introduced to the suits the creators had. Soon the synthetics began controlling their creators.

After gaining the Geth peace Tali mentions (While in the engine core) that because the Geth are Software they can be installed into their suits to assist in modifying their bodies so they are not as acceptable to infection.

The similarities caught me by surprise once heard them.

Ryde…

[Kel Riever]

Saying that not thinking about the ending is a good idea is like being a cat and running into a mirror, and then pretending it meant to do that.

In other words, there's no excuse. Nice try.

[v TricKy v]

bump

[Femlob]

RydeCrash wrote...

While talking to Javik he details the Synthetics / Organics of his cycle. He states that a race whom was physically weak created synthetics to help them. The synthetics where introduced to the suits the creators had. Soon the synthetics began controlling their creators.

After gaining the Geth peace Tali mentions (While in the engine core) that because the Geth are Software they can be installed into their suits to assist in modifying their bodies so they are not as acceptable to infection.

The similarities caught me by surprise once heard them.

Ryde…

As I recall, the Geth don't modify the Quarian bodies; they merely mimic infections to jump-start their immune systems.

That said, I have no idea how a piece of software could mimic a viral infecion - but that's a discussion for another day.

[DeamonSlaz]

JK Rowling planned ahead. SHe wrote the final book and then worked backwards.

Several authors when writing series create 'bibles' that contain their lore and evolve it over time.

ME 3 writers failed to evovle ME and ME 2 lore and keep to the developing narratives.

3/4 of ME 3 was awesome, started to come together nicely with a lot of plot tie-ups and then you get the shoe-horned ending.

The Star Child is just as alien to the plot as he is to the entire game and storyline. He does not exist and then suddenly is amde out to be some super god and the head guy. He then offers a bunch of options and forces you to just flat out trust him.

THat ending was poorly executed. If they wanted the three chocies of Destroy, Control or Synthesis, well I've proposed in three seperate threads how it could have been worked into the storyline alongside a sucide mission and Boss Fight.

However, that is not what Bioware wanted.

On a personal note, I am hobby writer and part time text based GM for Warhammer 40K forum and I learnt very early on to have a great storyline, you do have to plan some parts and if you are doing a sequal begin to drop hints in the later half. So no, MW is wrong. You should plan ahead. Not plan every single detail, but plan roughly and know where you want it to end at.