288 réponses à ce sujet

[yukon fire]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I think ME3 would have turned out a lot better if they had done what he's talking about there, what with the figuring out the consequences of player actions in previous parts of the trilogy and such.

Yeah its a shame "this face" of Mac Walters didn't have anything to do with ME3, it was his other more artistic one

[Xenite]

Lucky Mame wrote...

So.. Now anyone afraid for Dragon Age 3? If BioWare's DA team is following the same strategy then do you think it's going to end up the same way ME3 did?

Personally I have little faith in DA3, Bioware no longer has enough creative control to make a sweeping epic like Origins. EA will always be on their back with tight budgets and hard deadlines, it's why very few games these days have that epic feeling. The few that do come out are almost completely all from small developers with no corporate overlords.

Besides that the Biowares claims that they listen to fans is just hot air and marketing bunk. If they listened to fans they would not keep carrying over the same mistakes from game to game. Fans complained heavily about DA2 fedex quests and stagnant ending. Then what did they do in ME3? Exact same fedex quest crap and a terrible ending that has no real impact from your choices.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Jenonax wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...


]While I agree in principal, you can also make the counter-argument that a branching narrative requires the most freedom of all, and even more when you allow undefined aspects within which can cause more variances when decided.

[/quote]

I agree that when coming up with the branching storyline that requires real flare and creativity, but the exectution has to be exceptionally controlled and more than a bit clever as to not contradict each other and make each and everyone of them logical and satisfying.[/quote]Fair enough.
[quote]
[quote]
This I disagree with. Or rather, the end for the trilogy was Mass Effect 3, and trying then didn't work. I'd argue that the end is the time for control, but the middle is the time for planning.

[/quote]

Agree to a point.  Really if the beginning and the middle are well put together the ending should really just write itself.[/quote]In the case of Mass Effect, I don't think we can claim that was the case. ME1 was too well rounded as a stand-alone: it didn't leave many plot threads to support a sequel plot besides 'Reapers still exist', and what few it did (the Batarians and the Terminus, the Council recognizing the Reapers)  were passed over in favor of inventing the Collectors. When the Collector threat was resolved, there was nothing else to go on... and when Arrival was introduced and then ignorred, that was the nail.


This is a personal opinion, but I feel the best route ME2 could have taken with regards to the Collectors would have been to focus on Terminus-Counicl tensions. Let the Council believe in the Reapers and prepare for the war, the Terminus not believe the Council and fear a Council invasion, and the Collectors could then be instigators of a galactic war to divide the galaxy before the Reapers arrive. That would have been a much more serious and credible threat than Human colony abductions.




[quote]

ME1 was a stepping stone into the trilogy, but as a self-contained story it wasn't an effective lead-in: heck, the trilogy could have dumped Shepard for a new hero each game and the story would work just as well. ME1 ended with no clear next step, no means to beat the Reapers (if we even needed to, with them 'trapped in Dark Space'), and no clear next move by either us or the Reapers. Where the Mass Effect trilogy was really going to set its path and tone was in Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 3 was always going to have to deal with the hand and planning of its predecessor.

[quote]
I could write essays about what a poorly put together trilogy Mass Effect is so I do agree with you here.  However I disagree with ME1 being the main problem. IMO its ME2 that really goes off on a tangent as it was all ultimately pointless and thus there is very little development of the storyline set down by ME1.[/quote]Did I say ME1 was the main problem? I didn't mean to if I did. I fully agree ME2 was what drove ME3's worse flaws.

ME1 didn't do enough in some respects, but the most important failure on the part of ME1 was deciding how its Big Choices would matter and carry-over: the Rachni were one thing and Wrex was another, but if there was one decision in Mass Effect 1 that should have had serious implications it should have been the Destiny Ascension choice. That would have been the basis for a branching storyline, and while ME2 didn't carry it ME1 didn't plan it.
[quote]
[quote]
The big issue with the Mass Effect trilogy, as I see it, is that it didn't go with branching storylines. It made as if it would in ME1, but ME2 put too much control in bringing everything back to a single narrative (the irrelevance of the Council, Councilor decision) without corresponding that with planning then and there, both for ME2 and ME3. They cut the branching storylines (applying control) without planning how the one they did settle on would go.

[/quote]

Could not agree with you more. 

[/quote]I couldn't either. Does that make us in agreement, or disagreement?

[XqctaX]

TookYoCookies wrote...

" there’s really no way plan out the details of the story for Mass Effect 3."

Jesus f*cking Christ, Maybe play the first 2 games of the trilogy?? I mean shot in the dark.. Just epic Mac Walters fail, doesnt know how to end it... "Umm sh*t, insert Deus Ex Machina here, and martyr the Protagonist. Yeah that will work... Oh yea, and the relays get destroyed and the Galaxy is now a f*cking wasteland! Hazaah! this has never been done before....".

It was so simple... Just let the player fight the Reapers, let the depth of the narrative play out subliminally while focusing on the near-impossible task at hand... What took place in ME3 was not artistic vision, it was writers block paired with time constraints on top of a misguided understanding of what made Mass Effect appeal to players.

QFT you took the words out of my mouth

[Jenonax]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


In the case of Mass Effect, I don't think we can claim that was the case. ME1 was too well rounded as a stand-alone: it didn't leave many plot threads to support a sequel plot besides 'Reapers still exist', and what few it did (the Batarians and the Terminus, the Council recognizing the Reapers)  were passed over in favor of inventing the Collectors. When the Collector threat was resolved, there was nothing else to go on... and when Arrival was introduced and then ignorred, that was the nail.

The Reapers still exist thing is the hook into the rest of the trilogy.  Its a great hook and classically used.  In a basic hero/villain story the first act covers the discovery of the threat, the second covers the discovery of the solution to the threat and the third covers the use of the solution and ultimate demise of the villain.  

In this respect ME1 did its job fine.  The Reapers are discovered.  That was the whole point and it pulled it off. 

I do agree that it felt very singular and perhaps could have used a more obvious sequal hook as it were.  The death of Shepard and destruction of the Normandy almost immediately afterwards (storywise) I don't think helped.

This is a personal opinion, but I feel the best route ME2 could have taken with regards to the Collectors would have been to focus on Terminus-Counicl tensions. Let the Council believe in the Reapers and prepare for the war, the Terminus not believe the Council and fear a Council invasion, and the Collectors could then be instigators of a galactic war to divide the galaxy before the Reapers arrive. That would have been a much more serious and credible threat than Human colony abductions.

I am totally on the fence about the Collectors.  I can take them or leave them even though I truly loved their story.  The thing is they don't add anything to the narrative overall.  Nothing about the main plot of ME2 has any baring on the main plot of the trilogy. 

I think the idea of them creating a divide is actually very good as a back up plan to the loss of the Citadel and thus the loss of Mass Relay control.  You're right, at least that would have given them some purpose.

Did I say ME1 was the main problem? I didn't mean to if I did. I fully agree ME2 was what drove ME3's worse flaws.

I think I inferred it.  Apologies if I misunderstood you.

ME1 didn't do enough in some respects, but the most important failure on the part of ME1 was deciding how its Big Choices would matter and carry-over: the Rachni were one thing and Wrex was another, but if there was one decision in Mass Effect 1 that should have had serious implications it should have been the Destiny Ascension choice. That would have been the basis for a branching storyline, and while ME2 didn't carry it ME1 didn't plan it.

I would argue that that isn't ME1's fault, rather the fault of the following instalments.  ME1 put those choices out there, it is not responsible for the ME2 and 3 not following up on them.

I couldn't either. Does that make us in agreement, or disagreement?

I think we agree, just arguing details.

Modifié par Jenonax, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:03 .

[Ieldra]

I'd like to add one thing:

Planning ahead in only broad outlines is not necessarily a bad thing. It has many advantages, as people have already pointed out.

However, one aspect absolutely must be pre-planned: What it is all about? What are the motivations of the primary antagonists? Who are they and why are they doing this? The nature of the Reapers, that was adequately foreshadowed by Sovereign, but Sovereign's dialogue, as opposed to Harbinger's, is in conflict with the end of ME3 about their motivations.

Bioware: next time you make a game trilogy with an overarching plot, outline that and a few variations for possible endings before you create the first instalment. That way, once players get to the ending, they'll go "Now it all makes sense", which is what you want, instead of "WTF just happened?" The EC is a very much appreciated attempt to save the ending from the WTF factor, and it does save it, but the WTF factor is mitigated, not gone, and it shouldn't have existed in the first place.

[Helios969]

I think part of the problem with us, the fans, is our tendency to apply our knowledge of books and movies (scriptwriting) to videogame writing. However, with it a yet still evolving process the strategies for "successfully" telling the story is still being defined, compounded by the fact that you have a team of writers in the mix...people with differing ideas of how it should be done and the direction the story arc should take. They are also restricted by the devs work. In script and novel writing if the author decides to rewrite halfway through or even nearing completion it's not too hard to do, but once a scene is rendered it's all but impossible to rewrite anything more than subtle nuances. You can't throw out 6 months of dev work unless a company is able to sell a 150$ game, (yeah, right, people whine about spending 60$.)

The real purpose of this thread is yet another attempt to rant and spew hate toward the BW writing team, (many the same people that moan about the writers and other ME associated employees avoiding this forum.) I get it, I'm not all that happy with the ending either, but seriously, people need to move on. It isn't going to change. Bioware isn't gonna fire the lead writer(s). And no one is saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before. At best, we can hope that future Bioware products will consider the events leading up to and beyond Mass Effect 3 and use those "mistakes" as a way to improve future releases.

Modifié par Helios969, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:43 .

[nitefyre410]

 

How did this man, get this job?  

You make an outline not as a  point by point or  step by step road map. You make an outline especially for a story as massive as  Mass Effect that has so many varying outcomes so don't you lose things and confuse your damn self. Gernal outlines of the major plot points and choices and outcomes. Ideas for major events and general idea of how you want the story to end and how build it and build to it. 

That way you not trying to explain  a major plot device and a new character in the last tens minutes of a 30 hr game. When you had  several major hub worlds  to give the player pieces of the puzzle then last  10 mintues are nothing more than putting the information together in the right way.   

Modifié par nitefyre410, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[SpamBot2000]

Maybe they're just planning even further ahead, how to get out of this silly video game business and be Hollywood playaz. Torch the damn thing, we're gonna be making movies with glamorous people.

Just a thought.

[Dean_the_Young]

Jenonax wrote...

The Reapers still exist thing is the hook into the rest of the trilogy.  Its a great hook and classically used.  In a basic hero/villain story the first act covers the discovery of the threat, the second covers the discovery of the solution to the threat and the third covers the use of the solution and ultimate demise of the villain.  

In this respect ME1 did its job fine.  The Reapers are discovered.  That was the whole point and it pulled it off. 

I do agree that it felt very singular and perhaps could have used a more obvious sequal hook as it were.  

As a overarching plot the Reapers suffice, but yes I was referring to the sequel hook.

The death of Shepard and destruction of the Normandy almost immediately afterwards (storywise) I don't think helped.

It would have been more of a gamble, but they could even have killed Shepard at the end of ME1 and it would have helped. Shepard could have died in the Sovereign tentacle crush scene, Anderson, Udina, and the Virmire Survivor meet in the Citadel and reflect on the Council situation and the path the Alliance will take, and the Virmire Survivor vows to carry on Shepard's mission.

Then, in ME2, we could either have the Lazarus revival of Shepard as in canon, or gone to an entirely separate protagonist. Say Jacob, since he was a player character in that side game, filling in the role of Shepard in the fight against the Collectors. Since nearly the entire team joined Shepard in ME2 for reasons unrelated to it being Shepard, any other protagonist could have picked up nearly the same people.

I am totally on the fence about the Collectors.  I can take them or leave them even though I truly loved their story.  The thing is they don't add anything to the narrative overall.  Nothing about the main plot of ME2 has any baring on the main plot of the trilogy. 

I think the idea of them creating a divide is actually very good as a back up plan to the loss of the Citadel and thus the loss of Mass Relay control.  You're right, at least that would have given them some purpose.

It would do doubly so when you factor in Collector Technologies as galaxy-shaking inventions. The Colony Abductions would gain a new relevance if it actually had been Batarian slavers, albeit using Collector Stasis technology.

Following that, the Omega Plague could have been a real galaxy-shaper: if it was really blamed on Humans/the Alliance, the Plague would have tied very well into the Council situation. A Paragon Council, while nervous about the Plague, trusts the Alliance and stands behind it when accusations rise. The Renegade Council sees the Alliance even more isolated, and almost universally accused, as holding responsibility. Cerberus interest/gain/usage of the Plague would also have been something to consider, given the obvious applications for them.

There Heretic Geth Virus, rather than being from a Sovereign data core, could just as easily have been justified as from the Collectors. Besides linking the Reaper proxies together, escalating the Alliance/Council-Geth War would have been a huge boon in keeping the galaxy divided.


You can throw more in, but the Collectors could have been a fountain of nasty surprises, but interesting developments and opportunities. Imagine a Babel Virus, a Collector-written computer virus that turns off all those translators that everyone uses. Besides huge economic/military implications, it would have made an excellent opportunity for Shepard to show off those alleged leadership skills by leading the team through even without a common language.

I would argue that that isn't ME1's fault, rather the fault of the following instalments.  ME1 put those choices out there, it is not responsible for the ME2 and 3 not following up on them.

I agree, but I think that ME1 didn't plan them out is a valid flaw even if the issue doesn't rise until later. Weak foundations and all that: if you don't have an idea of where you want to go with the answers, why ask a question?

I think we agree, just arguing details.

And civily as well. This is quite a treat. If I sent you a friend request, would you do me the honor of accepting?

[FlamingBoy]

Lucky Mame wrote...

So.. Now anyone afraid for Dragon Age 3? If BioWare's DA team is following the same strategy then do you think it's going to end up the same way ME3 did?

not afraid, terrified, its probably going to end up in another disaster!

[JeffZero]

That'd be awesome. If DA3 matches ME3's levels of coolness, I'll buy three of 'em.

333333.

[CroGamer002]

And it's finally admitted.


Hack Walters is truly a hack.

[Jenonax]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
And civily as well. This is quite a treat. If I sent you a friend request, would you do me the honor of accepting?

Of course:O

Sorry I did have a longer post to answer all the rest but I managed to delete all of it like a pleb.

[Bleachrude]

Mesina2 wrote...

And it's finally admitted.


Hack Walters is truly a hack.

Slight problem...maybe I'm wrong but I thought Mass Effect was Walter's brainchild/baby. The alien races, the council the citadel, the reapers, the whole thing was Marc Walters.....

EDIT: Or was it Casey Hudson?

Modifié par Bleachrude, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:40 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Bleachrude wrote...



Slight problem...maybe I'm wrong but I thought Mass Effect was Walter's brainchild/baby. The alien races, the council the citadel, the reapers, the whole thing was Marc Walters.....

EDIT: Or was it Casey Hudson?

No you have Drew Karpyshyn to thank for Mass Effect. He was the the lead writer for ME1.

[CroGamer002]

Bleachrude wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

And it's finally admitted.


Hack Walters is truly a hack.

Slight problem...maybe I'm wrong but I thought Mass Effect was Walter's brainchild/baby. The alien races, the council the citadel, the reapers, the whole thing was Marc Walters.....

He can create interesting stuff, but has no idea how to use them properly.


Even then, I'm also hitting on Drew Karpyshyn.
He also failed to write the trilogy's skeleton.
SKELETON!


They claimed they written the skeleton of trilogy, but that's not true. They only written Reapers come in ME3.
That's it.
That's not a skeleton, that's just a bone.



And they're claiming they had big ambitions and vision?

[savionen]

Those Protheans wrote...
>Doesn't plan ahead

>Wonders why the story turned to s**t

[o Ventus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Correction: the story required a MacGuffin plot device to be resolved... just like ME1 and ME2 did. The Crucible is not a deus ex machina, because it is firmly established early and continuously throughout the game.

The Conduit in ME1 is not a MacGuffin. I have no idea what you could be referencing in ME2. The Reaper IFF? That isn't a MacGuffin either.

[Bleachrude]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...



Slight problem...maybe I'm wrong but I thought Mass Effect was Walter's brainchild/baby. The alien races, the council the citadel, the reapers, the whole thing was Marc Walters.....

EDIT: Or was it Casey Hudson?

No you have Drew Karpyshyn to thank for Mass Effect. He was the the lead writer for ME1.

Nope...just doublechecked.

ME is Casey Hudson's brainchild. The alien races are more of a team-effort as bioware wanted to hit classic alien tropes - "hot alien space babe - asari", "classic grey alien - salarian".

[BSpud]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...



Slight problem...maybe I'm wrong but I thought Mass Effect was Walter's brainchild/baby. The alien races, the council the citadel, the reapers, the whole thing was Marc Walters.....

EDIT: Or was it Casey Hudson?

No you have Drew Karpyshyn to thank for Mass Effect. He was the the lead writer for ME1.

AFAIK, Hudson was the catalyst (lolpun) of the franchise but Drew fleshed it all out into the form we recognize today, with Mac initially aiding Drew and then taking over the lead reigns when ME 2 kicked off into major production. This is all generally speaking, of course; the series is one big collaborative effort of many writers and artists.

[CroGamer002]

Oh and Hack Walters.

Check on the Avengers movie franchise.
Smash hit and all movies are planned ahead.



YOU FAIL!

[Slappy Ya Face]

How does this guy have a job? Seriously! I could have done better after shotgunning 3 beers! He honestly thinks that's the only way of doing this?! What a hack.

Modifié par Slappy Ya Face, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:52 .

[Jamie9]

And some of the goodwill you generated from the EC just died.

Seriously. ALWAYS plan ahead. If you don't, you will **** up. Look around. You ****ed up because it wasn't planned. Always have the ending in mind, damn it!

Please leave BioWare. You're obviously not willing to listen to criticism.

EDIT: The article is actually from just before release. He's still a terrible author who thinks not planning ahead and Deus Ex Machinas are good literary devices, but maybe he's learned since then.

Modifié par Jamie9, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:54 .

[v TricKy v]

Mesina2 wrote...

Oh and Hack Walters.

Check on the Avengers movie franchise.
Smash hit and all movies are planned ahead.



YOU FAIL!

yep evey single movie tied in perfectly in The Avengers. That´s the perfect example on how to do it.