288 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

CINCTuchanka wrote...

Oh BSN. You want BioWare to change the story the way you want it to be changed but you also want it planned out ahead of time before you have time to give feedback about said story. You want it to be "your story" and "your Shepard" but also want the plot planned out ahead well in advance.

Coming here makes me feel so much better about myself.

I love it when seemingly otherwise intelligent people miss the point so grotesquely.

[Urdnot Amenark]

CINCTuchanka wrote...

Oh BSN. You want BioWare to change the story the way you want it to be changed but you also want it planned out ahead of time before you have time to give feedback about said story. You want it to be "your story" and "your Shepard" but also want the plot planned out ahead well in advance.

Coming here makes me feel so much better about myself.

I don't think any reasonable person in this thread wants the story changed how they see fit. People seem to be unable to stop mistaking constructive criticism of a justifiably problematic writing approach in this case with whining.

[Pitznik]

Whatever the plot would be, one guy versus an army of invincible space monsters final showdown was bound to be somewhat stupid, no matter if planned from the start, or not.

[Zuka999]

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

ITT a bunch of non-writers thinking they can harsh on writers for writing how writers write

No one plans every detail of a story from the beginning, if you did you would be stuck with a rigid piece of crap.

Look at you going mad boss with your slang, bro.

There is such a thing called an "outline." I recommend you investigate it.

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know. 

Not knowing every single detail does not mean you do not know what will happen. If you actually read what Mac Walters said rather than immediately jumping down his throat you'd see that they did know what would happen, and it turned out rather spectacularly until the last five minutes.

Again, sorry, professional writers know more about this than random people on BSN. (Not me, I'm not professional yet, so don't try and jump down my throat again).

[Urdnot Amenark]

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

ITT a bunch of non-writers thinking they can harsh on writers for writing how writers write

No one plans every detail of a story from the beginning, if you did you would be stuck with a rigid piece of crap.

Look at you going mad boss with your slang, bro.

There is such a thing called an "outline." I recommend you investigate it.

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know. 

Not to be a reductionist, but an appeal to authority doesn't make your claim more valid than wantedman's. Outlines also differ depending upon the writer. Some literally plan out every important plot point possible before writing; others are more forgiving in approach; some don't use them at all.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Pitznik wrote...

Whatever the plot would be, one guy versus an army of invincible space monsters final showdown was bound to be somewhat stupid, no matter if planned from the start, or not.

Technically, they weren't nearly "invincible" until ME3. Incredibly difficult to defeat, certainly. Invincible? Hardly.

[wantedman dan]

Zuka999 wrote...

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know.  

No, really? That's what that means? Jesus, you'd think that, if you knew that from the beginning, you'd understand the complaints in the first place. Surprisingly not. I see your "trilogy of novels" going swimmingly with that philosophy.

Not knowing every single detail does not mean you do not know what will happen. If you actually read what Mac Walters said rather than immediately jumping down his throat you'd see that they did know what would happen, and it turned out rather spectacularly until the last five minutes.

You do understand that Mac said otherwise, right? They didn't know what would happen until they got to the point of creating the game. Two paragraphs for ME2 during ME1; two paragraphs for ME3 during ME2. That's not knowing what will happen. That's "oh, we'll think about it when we get there."

Again, sorry, professional writers know more about this than random people on BSN. (Not me, I'm not professional yet, so don't try and jump down my throat again).

Yeah, you go all ham and throw out condescension like candy at a parade, but at the end you go "DON'T CHASTISE ME BRO, I'M NO PROFESSIONAL."

Your appeal to authority is noted, laughed at, and disregarded.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 08 juillet 2012 - 07:08 .

[Captain Kibosh]

The Angry One

Cypher_CS wrote...

Err... 
That's not what he said...

He
said that the only way you can do a story like the one where the
previous two stories had massive branching choices for the players to
take and then understand that feedback and choices made and only then go
about exploring the major themes, the major choices.

Professional authors don't do multiple choice storyarchs....

But way to spin.

And yet Karpyshyn could draw up the dark energy outline during ME2 all the same.
Not to mention all the times Walters flat out disregarded player choice anyway. Anderson, anyone? Rachnii?

I think "player choice" has been a little over-hyped both in terms of developer marketing and fan expectations.  Both sides seem to want to put forth this paradigm that player choice results in these radically diverging narratives, which simply isn't the case and more to the point, probably an extrememly difficult goal to fully realize.

To use an analogy, it seems people want to see the ME games as a tree that branches into different plot lines with vastly different outcomes.  The more apt description would be that player choices are vines that may twist and twirl for a bit away from the host tree (read: main story arc), but it always has to stick with the tree in order to sustain itself.

If you think about it, narrative divergences come back to the main story arc through what essentially amounts to ornate window dressing (sorry for mixing metaphors!).  For example: Did Thane die in your suicide run against the Collectors?  No problem, BW puts in Major Kirahee in his place in ME 3 to fend of Kai Leng, the same villain in the same setting of the Citadel under attack by Cerberus.

This applies to your concerns with Anderson and the Rachni.  Anderson as a member of the council or not?  Rachni queen alive or not?  All cosmetic choices on a certain level, because certain set pieces have to be actualized for the main story arc to continue in a coherent way.

Obviously as players, we'd love to have the tree metaphor apply to our gaming, but is it realistic to expect that, or the developers to market that given certain real life limitations?  There are so many more variables involved in making a game than just the writers.  If Mass Effect was just a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book (anyone remember those from the 80s?), yes, then I would say it's realistic to expect the tree metaphor of branching narratives.

But in a game, it's nigh impossible.  Want to have a completely different scenario in which Udina never becomes a council member, but still collaborates Cerberus?  That means a whole different set piece that doesn't take place with Udina fleeing with the other council members.  Maybe Shepard wouldn't even have a showdown with Kaidan/Ashley but find himself in some other confrontation with Udina and his goons.  I'm not a game developer, but even I can see the economic and logistical perils of developing scenarios which some players may never see, depending on how they play.

A video game has so many other variables to consider beyond the writer.  Budget constraints, set pieces for combat and major plot points, computer animations, hardware and software limitations,  voice acting, and the list goes on.  Gamers are clamoring a holodeck experience (a la Star Trek) within the limitations of 21st century economics and technology.  Just to underscore how difficult it is for game developers to create a story, since the writers aren't writing in a vacuum, I enclose the following article about the difficulty of facilitating voice acting:

www.joystiq.com/2012/07/06/voice-acting-in-rpgs-may-be-more-trouble-than-its-worth/

By very virtue of the fact hat all of on the forums can refer to the primary story arc of Shepard's exerpience and still understand what each of us are talking about is a testament of how linear the ME experience really is.

Now don't get me wrong, for what the ME narrative is (vines crawling up a tree) I think the franchise has done amazing things with player choice in terms of character interaction (dialogue trees), consequences (which squadmates live or die), utilizing previous game saves to affect successive games, etc.

But if gamers and developers are hyping the holodeck experience, all sides are going to end up VERY disappointed.  All this IMHO.  :innocent:

EDIT: Messed up the quoting blocks and fixed (hopefully!).

Modifié par Captain Kibosh, 08 juillet 2012 - 07:10 .

[Zuka999]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

ITT a bunch of non-writers thinking they can harsh on writers for writing how writers write

No one plans every detail of a story from the beginning, if you did you would be stuck with a rigid piece of crap.

Look at you going mad boss with your slang, bro.

There is such a thing called an "outline." I recommend you investigate it.

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know. 

Not to be a reductionist, but an appeal to authority doesn't make your claim more valid than wantedman's. Outlines also differ depending upon the writer. Some literally plan out every important plot point possible before writing; others are more forgiving in approach; some don't use them at all.

I wasn't appealing to authority, I was defending myself against baseless attacks I felt insulted by. The idea that I somehow don't know what an outline is. I agree with you, I'm more out to defend the BioWare writers, who are exceptional when it comes to character development and technobabble. The implication that they must plan out everything or its crap is nonsense seeing as that didn't happen.

TL;DR or just unclear or w/e: I agree with you.

[Zuka999]

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know.  

No, really? That's what that means? Jesus, you'd think that, if you knew that from the beginning, you'd understand the complaints in the first place. Surprisingly not. I see your "trilogy of novels" going swimmingly with that philosophy.

Not knowing every single detail does not mean you do not know what will happen. If you actually read what Mac Walters said rather than immediately jumping down his throat you'd see that they did know what would happen, and it turned out rather spectacularly until the last five minutes.

You do understand that Mac said otherwise, right? They didn't know what would happen until they got to the point of creating the game. Two paragraphs for ME2 during ME1; two paragraphs for ME3 during ME2. That's not knowing what will happen. That's "oh, we'll think about it when we get there."

Again, sorry, professional writers know more about this than random people on BSN. (Not me, I'm not professional yet, so don't try and jump down my throat again).

Yeah, you go all ham and throw out condescension like candy at a parade, but at the end you go "DON'T CHASTISE ME BRO, I'M NO PROFESSIONAL."

Your appeal to authority is noted, laughed at, and disregarded.

Good for you.

[wantedman dan]

Zuka999 wrote...

I wasn't appealing to authority, I was defending myself against baseless attacks I felt insulted by. The idea that I somehow don't know what an outline is. I agree with you, I'm more out to defend the BioWare writers, who are exceptional when it comes to character development and technobabble. The implication that they must plan out everything or its crap is nonsense seeing as that didn't happen.

TL;DR or just unclear or w/e: I agree with you.

The following is an appeal to authority:

Zuka999 wrote...

Again, sorry, professional writers know more about this than random people on BSN. (Not me, I'm not professional yet, so don't try and jump down my throat again).

, and thus, it is a logical fallacy.

[wantedman dan]

Zuka999 wrote...

Good for you.

Shutting down works, too.

Blue Screen of Death-ing your own argument works wonders.

[Ryzaki]

Pitznik wrote...

Whatever the plot would be, one guy versus an army of invincible space monsters final showdown was bound to be somewhat stupid, no matter if planned from the start, or not.

This is true.

The Reapers didn't even need to be invincible either. It's repeatedly stated they used a sneak attack to utterly cripple their enemies.

You don't need superpowers untop of that.

[Zuka999]

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

I wasn't appealing to authority, I was defending myself against baseless attacks I felt insulted by. The idea that I somehow don't know what an outline is. I agree with you, I'm more out to defend the BioWare writers, who are exceptional when it comes to character development and technobabble. The implication that they must plan out everything or its crap is nonsense seeing as that didn't happen.

TL;DR or just unclear or w/e: I agree with you.

The following is an appeal to authority:

Zuka999 wrote...

Again, sorry, professional writers know more about this than random people on BSN. (Not me, I'm not professional yet, so don't try and jump down my throat again).

, and thus, it is a logical fallacy.

That or its entirely logical that people who are paid to write know more about writing than people who do not get paid to write. Get over it, you armchair philosopher you.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Zuka999 wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

ITT a bunch of non-writers thinking they can harsh on writers for writing how writers write

No one plans every detail of a story from the beginning, if you did you would be stuck with a rigid piece of crap.

Look at you going mad boss with your slang, bro.

There is such a thing called an "outline." I recommend you investigate it.

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know. 

Not to be a reductionist, but an appeal to authority doesn't make your claim more valid than wantedman's. Outlines also differ depending upon the writer. Some literally plan out every important plot point possible before writing; others are more forgiving in approach; some don't use them at all.

I wasn't appealing to authority, I was defending myself against baseless attacks I felt insulted by. The idea that I somehow don't know what an outline is. I agree with you, I'm more out to defend the BioWare writers, who are exceptional when it comes to character development and technobabble. The implication that they must plan out everything or its crap is nonsense seeing as that didn't happen.

TL;DR or just unclear or w/e: I agree with you.

Well, a debate is lively, and the idea that they must plan out everything isn't what we're stressing; it's the fact that very little planning went into it, and I must say that given the immense body of work behind the game, some modest planning was definitely necessary. Not meticulous, but substantial.

[Seboist]

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

ITT a bunch of non-writers thinking they can harsh on writers for writing how writers write

No one plans every detail of a story from the beginning, if you did you would be stuck with a rigid piece of crap.

Look at you going mad boss with your slang, bro.

There is such a thing called an "outline." I recommend you investigate it.

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know. 

Not knowing every single detail does not mean you do not know what will happen. If you actually read what Mac Walters said rather than immediately jumping down his throat you'd see that they did know what would happen, and it turned out rather spectacularly until the last five minutes.

Again, sorry, professional writers know more about this than random people on BSN. (Not me, I'm not professional yet, so don't try and jump down my throat again).

Lol no.

A second game that retcons the ending of ME1 (Council/Udina recognizing the Reaper threat and preparing for war) and instead focuses on solving daddy issues for a bunch of overgrown manchildren and fighting filler bad guys that doesn't advance the main plot one iota is "knowing what will happen" and "spectacular" ?

How about a third game that completely retcons the Reaper plot of taking control of the Citadel ASAP and controlling the relay network with it? As added bonuses we have a retconned Cerberus Sith Empire that overshadows our main antagonists and a Deus Ex Machina that nobody knows how it works or what it does but hey, let's funnel all these critical resources towards it anyway!

The Mass Effect sequels are on the level of the Star Wars prequels at best and on Ed Wood's level at worst(Lazarus,Space Terminator,Crucible and Starchild).

[Zuka999]

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Good for you.

Shutting down works, too.

Blue Screen of Death-ing your own argument works wonders.

Let the butthurt flow through you. I don't care to argue with some over-eager guy on BSN about nothing. At this point I find how much you care entertaining, you're so on edge about this aren't you? I MUST WIN THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT BIOWARE! Have fun. Too much effort for me.

[wantedman dan]

Zuka999 wrote...

That or its entirely logical that people who are paid to write know more about writing than people who do not get paid to write. Get over it, you armchair philosopher you.

LOL So, it's entirely logical to assume that because I get paid, I automatically know more than you.

I see. So if I got paid to post on the forums, does that mean I know more than everyone else here?

[wantedman dan]

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Good for you.

Shutting down works, too.

Blue Screen of Death-ing your own argument works wonders.

Let the butthurt flow through you. I don't care to argue with some over-eager guy on BSN about nothing. At this point I find how much you care entertaining, you're so on edge about this aren't you? I MUST WIN THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT BIOWARE! Have fun. Too much effort for me.

Hahahaha. No, I just love to watch people squirm when they a) can't come up with a decent argument and then resort to either personal attacks or running away.

It's the butter to my forum-bread.

[Little Princess Peach]

This is so...Im speachless

[Zuka999]

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

That or its entirely logical that people who are paid to write know more about writing than people who do not get paid to write. Get over it, you armchair philosopher you.

LOL So, it's entirely logical to assume that because I get paid, I automatically know more than you.

I see. So if I got paid to post on the forums, does that mean I know more than everyone else here?

Yeah go ahead and keep pretending that the guy who argues about nothing on BioWare Social Network knows more about writing than the guys who repeatedly get accolades writing for BioWare. Because that makes logical sense somehow. Its like people who argue about religion or science with absolute no science degrees and no positions in any theology whatsoever. Who are you going to trust, the people who are successful in the field or a nobody?

Call it a logical fallacy all you want, you're just hiding behind lame debate reasoning that has no actual implication in reality.

[Zuka999]

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Good for you.

Shutting down works, too.

Blue Screen of Death-ing your own argument works wonders.

Let the butthurt flow through you. I don't care to argue with some over-eager guy on BSN about nothing. At this point I find how much you care entertaining, you're so on edge about this aren't you? I MUST WIN THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT BIOWARE! Have fun. Too much effort for me.

Hahahaha. No, I just love to watch people squirm when they a) can't come up with a decent argument and then resort to either personal attacks or running away.

It's the butter to my forum-bread.

Uh-huh. Have fun with that.

[wantedman dan]

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

That or its entirely logical that people who are paid to write know more about writing than people who do not get paid to write. Get over it, you armchair philosopher you.

LOL So, it's entirely logical to assume that because I get paid, I automatically know more than you.

I see. So if I got paid to post on the forums, does that mean I know more than everyone else here?

Yeah go ahead and keep pretending that the guy who argues about nothing on BioWare Social Network knows more about writing than the guys who repeatedly get accolades writing for BioWare. Because that makes logical sense somehow. Its like people who argue about religion or science with absolute no science degrees and no positions in any theology whatsoever. Who are you going to trust, the people who are successful in the field or a nobody?

Call it a logical fallacy all you want, you're just hiding behind lame debate reasoning that has no actual implication in reality.

Now that is a more logical argument. The appeals you made there are much better. But simply saying "LAWL THEIR PROFESHUNALS" makes no logical sense.

[wantedman dan]

Zuka999 wrote...

Uh-huh. Have fun with that.

Much more than playing GTA4 at the moment.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Seboist wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

ITT a bunch of non-writers thinking they can harsh on writers for writing how writers write

No one plans every detail of a story from the beginning, if you did you would be stuck with a rigid piece of crap.

Look at you going mad boss with your slang, bro.

There is such a thing called an "outline." I recommend you investigate it.

I suggest you actually understand what an outline is before you make stupid statements like this. An outline is essentially a guideline. Seeing as I just wrote a 4,000 page manuscript for a trilogy of novels I think I do actually know. 

Not knowing every single detail does not mean you do not know what will happen. If you actually read what Mac Walters said rather than immediately jumping down his throat you'd see that they did know what would happen, and it turned out rather spectacularly until the last five minutes.

Again, sorry, professional writers know more about this than random people on BSN. (Not me, I'm not professional yet, so don't try and jump down my throat again).

Lol no.

A second game that retcons the ending of ME1 (Council/Udina recognizing the Reaper threat and preparing for war) and instead focuses on solving daddy issues for a bunch of overgrown manchildren and fighting filler bad guys that doesn't advance the main plot one iota is "knowing what will happen" and "spectacular" ?

How about a third game that completely retcons the Reaper plot of taking control of the Citadel ASAP and controlling the relay network with it? As added bonuses we have a retconned Cerberus Sith Empire that overshadows our main antagonists and a Deus Ex Machina that nobody knows how it works or what it does but hey, let's funnel all these critical resources towards it anyway!

The Mass Effect sequels are on the level of the Star Wars prequels at best and on Ed Wood's level at worst(Lazarus,Space Terminator,Crucible and Starchild).

NOOOOO Ed Wood was atrocious. This is way better than anything Ed Wood could chuck out.

I don't consider the shift in ME2's beginning a retcon. From what I understand, the Council abandoned a belief in the Reapers because they couldn't find anything substantial in Shepard's reports to corroborate it. Sovereign was almost completely obliterated, so there was no way to confirm he was anything but an advanced spaceship - which they assumed was a geth construct. In the books related to the series, Anderson eventually gives up his seat in the Council to do more important work since he didn't feel they were getting anywhere with the Council so Udina becoming Councilor in his stead was inevitable. One thing to note is that most sequels in a trilogy don't have much forward momentum overall; in ME 2's case, which I love the most out of all three, the conflicts aside from the Collector issue were more cerebral.

As for ME3, Cerberus possibly turning is already hinted at in both the endings of ME2. If you destroy the Base, TIM's your enemy. If you save it, you get a shot of TIM with a rather sinister smile on his face while he watches the Collector Base via hologram. He'd already said he wanted to use the technology of the Reapers in the fight against them; at most, I find the "control the Reapers" plotline to be moreso a predictable development; a friend even predicted that years before 3 released. 

Your Star Wars quips are hilarious.