310 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Roamingmachine wrote...

The real reason why the series took a nose dive after ME1 and made pavement pizza in ME3? Look who is credited as the lead writer in each game.The reason why ME1 actually holds together is because it actually had a fairly talented writer in charge of the overall plot.Mac'n'Cheese are many things but talented writers they are not.

And to the guy who used Benezia as an example of immaturity in ME1: One instance of cleavage in the entire game.ONE. Compare to the strippers of 2&3 that are on your squad for some reason.

Drew was the lead writer in ME2 I hope you know.

[Roamingmachine]

dreman9999 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

The real reason why the series took a nose dive after ME1 and made pavement pizza in ME3? Look who is credited as the lead writer in each game.The reason why ME1 actually holds together is because it actually had a fairly talented writer in charge of the overall plot.Mac'n'Cheese are many things but talented writers they are not.

And to the guy who used Benezia as an example of immaturity in ME1: One instance of cleavage in the entire game.ONE. Compare to the strippers of 2&3 that are on your squad for some reason.

Drew was the lead writer in ME2 I hope you know.

...With Mac Walters elbowing his way in.Comparing Mass Effect 2&3 with Mass Effect 1, you can clearly see who was actually in charge of ME2.I guess Drew lost interest in the game somewhere along the way.

[Fingertrip]

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

[Roamingmachine]

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

[Blueprotoss]

Eain wrote...

They don't exaggerate anything. I linked the first proper conversation held in each game and showed the difference, and how I think they reflect the general trend of their respective games. One is smart, intelligent, calm, expository. The other is full of dumb lines and inane one-liners. They symbolise something, they are not my "entire argument". Indeed if the intro conversation was the only dumb conversation in the entire third game I wouldn't be here making this thread now would I?

Yet all of this is Opinion just like how everyone has their own tastes and dislikes.

Roamingmachine wrote...

The real reason why the series took a nose dive after ME1 and made pavement pizza in ME3? Look who is credited as the lead writer in each game.The reason why ME1 actually holds together is because it actually had a fairly talented writer in charge of the overall plot.Mac'n'Cheese are many things but talented writers they are not.

And to the guy who used Benezia as an example of immaturity in ME1: One instance of cleavage in the entire game.ONE. Compare to the strippers of 2&3 that are on your squad for some reason.

All I see is people trying to turn opinions into facts, which that isn't working.

I also see that forgot about the strippers in ME1. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:28 .

[Tigerman123]

Roamingmachine wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

Maybe he thinks that all of the mass effect games have mediocre writing

[Blueprotoss]

Tigerman123 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

Maybe he thinks that all of the mass effect games have mediocre writing

Yet writing is subjective.

[Eain]

Anyone who reads my posts on this forum knows that I've faulted all three games for plotholes and poor writing, but at least ME1 and ME2 weren't criminally bad. In fact, they were fun enough for me to want to forget about the plotholes and just play the game. ME3 crossed the line with all its Power Ranger antics and now it's just a sci-fi joke.

If anything I had really high hopes for the series after ME1. I felt like I had played a game with a lot of potential and I was certain that the writers, who seemed clearly passionate about the world they built, were going to ensure that the second installment was going to be even better. You might not believe it, but I thought the ME series was going to a place where after finishing the third game we would look upon the first as the product of clunky, if well-intentioned amateurism. That am I now here heralding ME1 as the golden age of ME is something I could've never imagined myself doing, and only demonstrates just how poor the third game is.

Modifié par Eain, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:32 .

[v TricKy v]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

Maybe he thinks that all of the mass effect games have mediocre writing

Yet writing is subjective.

But plot-holes and inconsistencies are objective and not subjective

[Veneke]

Eain wrote...

A number of well made points.

You're basically right, although you appear to have throw the baby out with the bathwater as well.

Anyone who disagrees with the fundamental concepts behind your OP has deluded themselves, was not paying attention or simply doesn't care about the shift. That may be a bit harsh, but it's undeniable that there were thematic changes, stylistic changes, unusual character developments etc across the three games. It's such a simple fact that I'm surprised every time I come by these boards to see arguments that suggest there was no shift. I wager these people don't understand the concept of a thematic or stylistic shift, but I digress.

On the other hand, a great deal of what you've pointed out is, or should have been given the series' popularity, entirely expected. The more popular (read lucrative) a game becomes the more important it is to expand the player base. You've already hooked a particular market segment with ME 1 so ME 2 builds on that by grabbing a different market segment and finally then, ME 3 grabs another. The last one in particular is the broadest, because there is not another installment with which to gather more sales. In other words, you would not open a series of this type with a game like ME 3 and then develop it into a game like ME 1. Things like space ninjas, curious outfits, a big bad 'Empire' (it is horrofic what they did to Cerberus, frankly), an inane plot device that wasn't needed in the slightest (Crucible) etc are necessary simplifications to avoid the 'tedious' dialogue and exposition that, had the ME 1 style been preserved, would have been requried to explain how it all came together in a coherent, meaningful way. Such dialogue would have put-off the broader player base in favour of die-hard sci-fi fans who'd be buying the game anyway.

Leaving aside these expected, if rather unfortunate, developments ME 2 and 3 are still enjoyable on their own terms and to a lesser extent there does exist the old ME 1 approach, particularly in the Genophage and Quarian/Geth story-arcs which are easily the two best storylines in the entire game. They're both grounded in the very basis of what intelligent sci-fi is all about - the exploration of potential possibilities in a realistic manner. The Quarian/Geth debate is a little overdone but it's quality across the series remains consistently good. The Genophage is an intriguing take on biological warfare and the moral conundrums that arise from the use of such weapons.

So much was sacrificed, however, that I quite agree with you regardless - it is difficult not to play ME 1 and wonder what might have been.

[Blueprotoss]

v TricKy v wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

Maybe he thinks that all of the mass effect games have mediocre writing

Yet writing is subjective.

But plot-holes and inconsistencies are objective and not subjective

If you're going to claim that then you'll have to go after the ME series as a whole not just one game.

[Ar7emis]

Eain wrote...
4) TIM is completely out of character.

ME2:

"Geth! We both know they're not the real threat - the Reapers are still out there..."

"And it's up to us to stop them."

ME3:

"Control is the means to survival!"

"I've dedicated my life to understanding the Reapers..."

[Veneke]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

Maybe he thinks that all of the mass effect games have mediocre writing

Yet writing is subjective.

No, it is not. You can enjoy bad writing, but that doesn't make it good.

[JeffZero]

 Hey, those one-liners have wit. And the setting was influenced by war-time; you don't roll out the crazy cyborg ninja sorts until the whole galaxy knows it's in peril.

Is it something of a failsafe response? Sure. There is a bit of a tonal shift aesthetically, for sure, but I've seen far worse offenders in gaming.

[JeffZero]

Veneke wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

Maybe he thinks that all of the mass effect games have mediocre writing

Yet writing is subjective.

No, it is not. You can enjoy bad writing, but that doesn't make it good.

You can enjoy pretending your opinions supercede all others, but that doesn't make you any more credible.

[Veneke]

JeffZero wrote...

Veneke wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Oh look, a blind ME1 fanboy.

Oh, look, a Bioware apologist who enjoys bad writing   How about not going down this road, hmm?

Maybe he thinks that all of the mass effect games have mediocre writing

Yet writing is subjective.

No, it is not. You can enjoy bad writing, but that doesn't make it good.

You can enjoy pretending your opinions supercede all others, but that doesn't make you any more credible.

It is the single most depressing thing of our time that people have come to understand fact as opinion and opinion as fact.

Bad writing has plotholes, unnatural character developments, handwaves... the list goes on. It can still be enjoyed, but it is not good writing. This is not opinion, this is literary fact and is so irrespective of what you think of my credibility.

[Richter09_3D]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

ME1 may have been more mature and whatnot, but it was boring as hell at times. I'll take ME2 any day of the week.

^this

Veneke wrote...

Eain wrote...

A number of well made points.

You're basically right, although you appear to have throw the baby out with the bathwater as well.

Anyone
who disagrees with the fundamental concepts behind your OP has deluded
themselves, was not paying attention or simply doesn't care about the
shift. That may be a bit harsh, but it's undeniable that there were
thematic changes, stylistic changes, unusual character developments etc
across the three games. It's such a simple fact that I'm surprised every
time I come by these boards to see arguments that suggest there was no
shift. I wager these people don't understand the concept of a thematic
or stylistic shift, but I digress.

On the other hand, a great
deal of what you've pointed out is, or should have been given the
series' popularity, entirely expected. The more popular (read lucrative)
a game becomes the more important it is to expand the player base.
You've already hooked a particular market segment with ME 1 so ME 2
builds on that by grabbing a different market segment and finally then,
ME 3 grabs another. The last one in particular is the broadest, because
there is not another installment with which to gather more sales. In
other words, you would not open a series of this type with a game like
ME 3 and then develop it into a game like ME 1. Things like space
ninjas, curious outfits, a big bad 'Empire' (it is horrofic what they
did to Cerberus, frankly), an inane plot device that wasn't needed in
the slightest (Crucible) etc are necessary simplifications to avoid the
'tedious' dialogue and exposition that, had the ME 1 style been
preserved, would have been requried to explain how it all came together
in a coherent, meaningful way. Such dialogue would have put-off the
broader player base in favour of die-hard sci-fi fans who'd be buying
the game anyway.

Leaving aside these expected, if rather
unfortunate, developments ME 2 and 3 are still enjoyable on their own
terms and to a lesser extent there does exist the old ME 1 approach,
particularly in the Genophage and Quarian/Geth story-arcs which are
easily the two best storylines in the entire game. They're both grounded
in the very basis of what intelligent sci-fi is all about - the
exploration of potential possibilities in a realistic manner. The
Quarian/Geth debate is a little overdone but it's quality across the
series remains consistently good. The Genophage is an intriguing take on
biological warfare and the moral conundrums that arise from the use of
such weapons.

So much was sacrificed, however, that I quite agree
with you regardless - it is difficult not to play ME 1 and wonder what
might have been.

^ and also definitely this:)

[Blueprotoss]

Veneke wrote...

It is the single most depressing thing of our time that people have come to understand fact as opinion and opinion as fact.

Yet this is hypocritcal based on you trying to turn your personal beliefs into facts.

Veneke wrote... 

Bad writing has plotholes, unnatural character developments, handwaves... the list goes on. It can still be enjoyed, but it is not good writing. This is not opinion, this is literary fact and is so irrespective of what you think of my credibility.

Writing is subjective in general just like how gameplay, visuals, and sound is subjective as well.  Btw since you're claiming plot holes then you should look at the ME series from start to finish.

[Veneke]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Veneke wrote...

It is the single most depressing thing of our time that people have come to understand fact as opinion and opinion as fact.

Yet this is hypocritcal based on you trying to turn your personal beliefs into facts.

I did enjoy the irony of it, yes. On the other hand, I'm not wrong and the 'personal beliefs' to which I believe you refer, are, in fact, facts.

Veneke wrote... 

Bad writing has plotholes, unnatural character developments, handwaves... the list goes on. It can still be enjoyed, but it is not good writing. This is not opinion, this is literary fact and is so irrespective of what you think of my credibility.

Writing is subjective in general just like how gameplay, visuals, and sound is subjective as well.  Btw since you're claiming plot holes then you should look at the ME series from start to finish.

Good and bad writing are not subjective in the sense you're trying to portray, neither are good gameplay, visuals etc. Good writing conforms to literary norms. In other words it has a beginning, middle, and ending, it adheres to proper character introduction and development, it explains itself... honestly, the list goes on. Bad writing is everything else. Bad writing can be immensely enjoyable and very popular - the Twilight series, for instance - but that does not make it good writing.

The same is true of gameplay, visuals etc. Good visuals are those that match the scene being played out, lip movements are in sync with character voices and conveys to the audience what they should be seeing. Bad visuals would be something like showing a picture of a goat when you're expecting to see a space battle. Yes, that's an extreme example but I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

Edit:

That goat could actually be very funny, now that I think about it... that, however, does not change the fact that it is bad. Unless, of course, its purpose was to be funny making it a satire, but neither Mass Effect, nor the goat, are satires.

Modifié par Veneke, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:23 .

[BDelacroix]

Eain wrote...

nhsknudsen wrote...

In a time before EA. (Yes I pulled that card because I believe it is true)

Actually I recall a developer stating that they think ME1 didn't work as well because the first act of the game on Eden Prime and the Citadel was really dull and people thought there wasn't enough combat.

Is there something wrong with just taking the time to soak everything in? Really? The Citadel section where you find evidence against Saren has always been one of my favourite parts of the game.

Also updated the OP with a song that I think epitomises the ME1 experience.

You have to remember that for whatever reason, developers do not think that story makes much of a difference to people in video games.  It is just a means to deliver their action.  So they think that the fun people had in this series isn't to learn about the world and characters and get involved, it is that we just like to sit behind cover and shoot things for a few hours.

I know, it looks bizarre to me, too, having typed it.  It begins to make sense, though, when you know that is the developer's perspective.

It is hard to break out of that mold because it worked for so long (Doom, long list of ID software titles, even the book worm adventures is just a means to do a word puzzle).

What I hope some developer has learned is that maybe breaking out of that mold is a risk worth taking.  Develop a story to be told through the medium of the computer game.  Don't try to define it with a label.  Work from the point of view of making a story that is written with a beginning middle and end (not try to tie things together as you go). It is somewhat of a risky venture but I think could pay off big if done right.

They laughed at Lucas when he wanted to do orchestral music in his Star Wars movie.  The money men thought nobody would want that.  They were wrong.

[dreman9999]

Roamingmachine wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Roamingmachine wrote...

The real reason why the series took a nose dive after ME1 and made pavement pizza in ME3? Look who is credited as the lead writer in each game.The reason why ME1 actually holds together is because it actually had a fairly talented writer in charge of the overall plot.Mac'n'Cheese are many things but talented writers they are not.

And to the guy who used Benezia as an example of immaturity in ME1: One instance of cleavage in the entire game.ONE. Compare to the strippers of 2&3 that are on your squad for some reason.

Drew was the lead writer in ME2 I hope you know.

...With Mac Walters elbowing his way in.Comparing Mass Effect 2&3 with Mass Effect 1, you can clearly see who was actually in charge of ME2.I guess Drew lost interest in the game somewhere along the way.

Mac Walters was doing that in ME1. Remeber, writing in games is a team effert. Drew had to agree first with anything MAC brought up as well as the rest of the team.

Modifié par dreman9999, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:44 .

[Blueprotoss]

Veneke wrote...

I did enjoy the irony of it, yes. On the other hand, I'm not wrong and the 'personal beliefs' to which I believe you refer, are, in fact, facts.

Yet you're still trying to use your opinion as fact, which means you actually missed the irony.

Veneke wrote... 

Good and bad writing are not subjective in the sense you're trying to portray, neither are good gameplay, visuals etc. Good writing conforms to literary norms. In other words it has a beginning, middle, and ending, it adheres to proper character introduction and development, it explains itself... honestly, the list goes on. Bad writing is everything else. Bad writing can be immensely enjoyable and very popular - the Twilight series, for instance - but that does not make it good writing.

The same is true of gameplay, visuals etc. Good visuals are those that match the scene being played out, lip movements are in sync with character voices and conveys to the audience what they should be seeing. Bad visuals would be something like showing a picture of a goat when you're expecting to see a space battle. Yes, that's an extreme example but I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

Edit:

That goat could actually be very funny, now that I think about it... that, however, does not change the fact that it is bad. Unless, of course, its purpose was to be funny making it a satire, but neither Mass Effect, nor the goat, are satires.

Yet you're still using opinion to justify misinformation.  Personally I loathe most of the rap genre and everything Twilight while I won't say they're bad based on how I only like specific artists and how I don't bother watching/reading/hearing Twilight.  Everything is subjective based on our own likes dislikes while its better to discuss things instead of complaining about those same exact things.

[dreman9999]

Ar7emis wrote...

Eain wrote...
4) TIM is completely out of character.

ME2:

"Geth! We both know they're not the real threat - the Reapers are still out there..."

"And it's up to us to stop them."

ME3:

"Control is the means to survival!"

"I've dedicated my life to understanding the Reapers..."

1. He had dedicated his life to understanding them. Look at all the husk test in ME1, ME:EVOLUTION,and the fact that the normady 2 is made of reapers tech.

2.And your fogetting he want ed to keep the base in ME2.

He is not out of character.

[Kel Riever]

Being generic doesn't have nearly as much bearing as whether a story is simply good. And you know it is good if it is widely accepted and enjoyed. There are people who like stories that would not be considered good, and that is simply a matter of personal preference, nothing wrong with that at all. But it is the hallmark of the elitist who scorns popularity to justify a personal perference for something not considered to be good work.

As far as stories go that are good, ME1 is far superior to what happens at the conclusion of ME3. ME3s end is not as bad as the Dungeons & Dragons movie, but in my most cynical moments, it looks really damn close...

ME1 does not have the gameplay, and that I will say. I do wish the play of ME3 was experienced in 1. But that really isn't what this topic is so much about. This is about the things that make a good role-playing setting, and in general, stories. The influence you have at the end of the game, while limited, is also far superior to, I would say, ME2 and 3. Given that is what I got into the series for, I sure as hell wish it all had stayed exactly as interesting as ME1, ME2, and the DLCs involved with both.