49 réponses à ce sujet

[Ithurael]

The Angry One wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

Earth had a special significance to the Human Race, and - as of ME2 - we know that the Reapers were VERY interested in harvesting humans (for reasons unknown at the time)

Besides, My shep was a colonist and even I felt an attachment to Earth.

But not to the player. Because we don't go there.
Even Star Ocean 3 did this better, because while never setting foot there it's intro gives a glimpse into a beautiful future Earth. Mass Effect doesn't even give us that. Not even in Mass Effect 3.

I care about the Citadel because I've been to the Citadel, seen it in it's prime and interacted with it's people. I don't care about Mass Effect's Earth because I've never seen it and never been there.
This is by the way the exact same reason why Vent Boy fails.

A good story ends where it begins,

ME1: We open with shepard looking at Earth
ME3: We retake the planet

Full circle

That is a simplified view but yeah the best I can come up with.

I won't lie I was kinda expecting some mega battle at the center of the galaxy or something (but that was ME2). Earth was good enough until the last 10 mins with starkid...

[The Angry One]

Grand Wazoo wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Mac Walters should be writing for direct to DVD film companies. That isn't so much of  an insult as somethingI believe he's truly most qualified for.

I belive it was a great man who once said: "A good man always knows his limitations".

Or he should've just stuck to character writing.
To this day it confuses me how someone who began in the series as a character writer went on to write an ending that completely disregards the characters and actually had to be reminded by the fans that the characters matter to us!

Modifié par The Angry One, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:09 .

[Shaigunjoe]

The Angry One wrote...

I think the lack of planning became evident right at the beginning with the sudden focus on Earth.
Earth was barely mentioned at all in the previous installments, with the focus being on humans in the galaxy and that galaxy with it's various species as a whole.

Now suddenly it's all about Earth. Earth is special and Shepard is thinking about Earth all the time. That was a warning sign that things were going downhill, though I never thought it'd be as bad as it turned out.

You did get to drive the Mako on the moon though, thats one of my favorite mass effect memories.

I don't think it was a lack of planning that put the focus on Earth, but rather an abundance of planning in how to bring more people in to the franchise. 

EA's plan was for people who never played ME to see that and say "I want to stop these alien things from blowing up earth, because thats where I keep all my stuff!".

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:11 .

[v TricKy v]

My Shepard grew up on earth alone and was part of the 10th Street Reds and is a real jackass because of it.
Try beating that with with your family loving colony and spacer Sheps.

[Memnon]

I actually don't fault them for this - my own anecdotal experience was with Neverwinter Nights. I ran an ongoing campaign with the same group for a little over two years, and while I had an over-arching plan and an idea as to who the primary villains and puppeteers were, I had no idea what the final installation would look like. Then again, my rationalization was that I had no idea what my players were going to do in the course of the campaign.

Anyways, I can forgive them for not having the trilogy planned out when ME1 was finished. I imagine Bioware wanted to hear what the fans thought of certain squad-mates and plot-lines, etc before they made a final decision. Then they basically went their own way anyways, so ... whatever. What I do fault them for is how - by their own admission - they had no idea what ME3 would even look like until ME2 was complete. So they hadn't thought what the "real" villain was going to be, what the ooooh-ahhh profound twist was going to be until at the last minute ... 

Modifié par Stornskar, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:12 .

[Atakuma]

Modifié par Atakuma, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:15 .

[Firecell11]

The Angry One wrote...

I think the lack of planning became evident right at the beginning with the sudden focus on Earth.
Earth was barely mentioned at all in the previous installments, with the focus being on humans in the galaxy and that galaxy with it's various species as a whole.

Now suddenly it's all about Earth. Earth is special and Shepard is thinking about Earth all the time. That was a warning sign that things were going downhill, though I never thought it'd be as bad as it turned out.

So much this.

[D24O]

Atakuma wrote...

[Vox Draco]

The Angry One wrote...

I think the lack of planning became evident right at the beginning with the sudden focus on Earth.
Earth was barely mentioned at all in the previous installments, with the focus being on humans in the galaxy and that galaxy with it's various species as a whole.

Now suddenly it's all about Earth. Earth is special and Shepard is thinking about Earth all the time. That was a warning sign that things were going downhill, though I never thought it'd be as bad as it turned out.

I think the lack of planning is apparent all through ME2 actually...

Of course I enjoyed playing it, but very, very often I just thought..."The Reapers are coming, and I am recruiting these bunch of people to do exactly what again...? Shouldn't we unite the galaxy so we are prepared to fight them in part 3?"

I am no professional writer, but I have the feeling the "bridige" between ME1 and 3 should have focused on preparing the galaxy for the inevitable war so part 3 can focus entirely on this. For me the last DLC for ME2 had really started the war, leaving open a nasty cliff-hanger and then part 3 brings us fully into the war and the many horrors of the Reaper-invasion.

Hell, even the ultimate solution to defeat the reapers should have been an essential part of ME2 already, to maki it an already known focus in ME3, and leading to a proper finale ... without any kind of Starchild, mind you...

No, I think the writers only knew that there needed to be a war in the end with the Reapers, but were never really sure how to get there properly, not to speak about how to solve this problem in a way it feels naturally grown from the story itself...

[GreyLycanTrope]

Could you please post your ending on your blog when you finish Ms. Snodgrass? I would appreciate some decent writing.

[darkchief10]

Vox Draco wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I think the lack of planning became evident right at the beginning with the sudden focus on Earth.
Earth was barely mentioned at all in the previous installments, with the focus being on humans in the galaxy and that galaxy with it's various species as a whole.

Now suddenly it's all about Earth. Earth is special and Shepard is thinking about Earth all the time. That was a warning sign that things were going downhill, though I never thought it'd be as bad as it turned out.

I think the lack of planning is apparent all through ME2 actually...

Of course I enjoyed playing it, but very, very often I just thought..."The Reapers are coming, and I am recruiting these bunch of people to do exactly what again...? Shouldn't we unite the galaxy so we are prepared to fight them in part 3?"

I am no professional writer, but I have the feeling the "bridige" between ME1 and 3 should have focused on preparing the galaxy for the inevitable war so part 3 can focus entirely on this. For me the last DLC for ME2 had really started the war, leaving open a nasty cliff-hanger and then part 3 brings us fully into the war and the many horrors of the Reaper-invasion.

Hell, even the ultimate solution to defeat the reapers should have been an essential part of ME2 already, to maki it an already known focus in ME3, and leading to a proper finale ... without any kind of Starchild, mind you...

No, I think the writers only knew that there needed to be a war in the end with the Reapers, but were never really sure how to get there properly, not to speak about how to solve this problem in a way it feels naturally grown from the story itself...

honestly,I believe they started shutting out the true talent in that company, it was always casey hudson and drew kaparshyn, and look at the most iconic video games bioware made, including with mass effect 1, starting with mass effect 2 it became apparrent that something changed, changing him from lead writer to co lead writer, then abruptly sending him to austin to put star wars back on track instead of allowing him to finish his baby, then his suddne resignation a few months after? maybe i'm reading to much into this, but something clearly happened between mass effect 1 and the EA takeover to so radically change the relationship that hudson and kaparshyn had for so many years, for him to be gradually shut out of his own project like that...i smell a rat.

[Daniel_N7]

This thread sums all my current problems/feelings regarding Mass Effect 3.

Let me say that I am a longtime fan of the series, I love Mass Effect and I believe in the future of this fictional world. But the lack of direction regarding the resolution of the conflict – something that Mac Walters admitted on an interview back in May I think (I don’t have the link, sorry) [SEE EDIT at the bottom]– has become a clear problem in this final chapter of the trilogy.

The basic premise of ME3 – that «We can’t beat the Reapers conventionally» - feels unnaturally enforced to the players. Something the authors had to establish to sustain the feeble plot solution – the Crucible – in a way that the players simply had to accept.

I would really love to know – although BioWare will probably never reveal it – when the Crucible idea was introduced, and how / why they failed to scrutinize / peer review this concept that is so obviously (imo) fragile. Could this be a consequence of BioWare’s script-secrecy strategy, and a consequence of the fact that the previous ending was leaked?

I will say that the greatest problem with Mass Effect 3 is not the endings or the introduction of the Catalyst, but the Crucible as a plot device, and the way it obliterates the course of the narrative of the trilogy.

The best parts of ME3 – the middle chapters like Tuchanka, Rannoch, Thessia, or sidemissions like Palaven and Grissom Academy – work as bubbles, independent of the main plot. I assume that these missions where possibly developed by multiple writers and collaborators, that might not even have knowledge of the overall script and its conclusion.

And ME3 therefore fails at the core narrative, the concept and development of the main storyline, meaning the responsibility goes, I’m really sorry to say, to the top writer and executive director.

I’ll just state it again. I love Mass Effect, and I want to see future games bringing this wonderful sci-fi creation the magnificence it deserves. My opinion – that’s all it is – may sound harsh but I have no hate for BioWare. But I do firmly believe that they must rethink their game developing policy, and establish a better peer review internal strategy, so that they don’t make similar mistakes as they have made this time.

Peace!
:innocent:

EDIT: here's the link to Mac Walters interview, from March 2012. And here's the quote:

DK: How much of the story was sketched out from the beginning and how much was written after the completion of the other games?

MW: I think people would be sort of surprised by how little we defined in the upcoming games. So in Mass Effect 1, it was really only a couple of paragraphs about what we thought Mass Effect 2 would be and even less of what we thought Mass Effect 3 would be. And it was the same thing when we where doing 2. It was really about having stakes in the ground about certain things. We knew that Mass Effect 3 would be about, the Reapers returning. We knew that it would be about the galactic conflict that would ensue from that, and we knew that it would be the end of Shepard’s story, one way or the other.
And other than those sort of key stakes, we didn’t tie ourselves into something, which is good, because it allowed us to do whatever we wanted as long as we weren’t veering away too much from [those key stakes].

[End of quote.]

Modifié par Daniel_N7, 13 juillet 2012 - 08:47 .

[davidshooter]

The Angry One wrote...

I think the lack of planning became evident right at the beginning with the sudden focus on Earth.
Earth was barely mentioned at all in the previous installments, with the focus being on humans in the galaxy and that galaxy with it's various species as a whole.

Now suddenly it's all about Earth. Earth is special and Shepard is thinking about Earth all the time. That was a warning sign that things were going downhill, though I never thought it'd be as bad as it turned out.

I honestly believe the story decision to focus on Earth was a marketing call and that the game was written literally around the slogan "Take Back Earth"  I think EA marketing wields that kind of power.

I mean that seriously too, I think they had the marketing slogan first and the story had to conform.

Oddly, we didn't even really take it back.

[o Ventus]

Tigerman123 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

From what I understand, game endings are written last most of the time. Bioshock suffered from this.

Mac Walters suffers from an inability to determine between art cinema endings and competent execution however.

Really?

Most authors I see have admitted to outlining the ending first, so they don't write themselves into madness.

You obviously didn't play Dragon age 2  :innocent:

No, I haven't.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

No, I haven't.

Yeah.

It has enemies that drop from the sky.

All the time.

The ****ing sky.

[GreyLycanTrope]

DA2 doesn't count, it's the middle of the trilogy. The Mage/ Templar conflict was foreshadowed throughout the entire game.

[Vox Draco]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Could you please post your ending on your blog when you finish Ms. Snodgrass? I would appreciate some decent writing.

I ama curious myself

After browsing a little in her blog I find M. Snodgrass more and more sympathetic. I always loved TNG's "Measure of a Man", always gets me hooked when on a rerun on TV despite having no action or special effects at all, just great actors in a great story...

And her views on the new Spiderman and Avengers are exactly mine *chuckles*

But what really elevates her now is her view on "happy endings". She get's it very right and spot-on for me, and Bioware, or all Game-designers, should read it and keep it in mind when making decisions about their stories. Not that happy endings are always needed, but the points Snodgrass makes are valid not only for the story of a game, but also from a company's point of view, and bioware could have spared itself so much pain and negativity....but spilled milk is spilled milk...

[jds1bio]

ScriptBabe wrote...

 You can plot as if it's going to last through multiple games.  We do that all the time when we create a television show or a novel series.

Allow me to use the canonical anti-example of this: "Lost."  TV/Books don't always do this either, and they paint themselves into corners too, from time to time.

ScriptBabe wrote...

I understand that players may select different endings.  Please take a look at Dragon Age: Origins to see how it was handled well.  You can go for self-sacrifice, you can sacrifice another -- Alistair or Loghain, you can take the deal with Morrigan.  Happy endings, sad endings, ethically challenged endings, but you can craft an ending appropriate to your vision of your warden.  None of that was evident in the ending of Mass Effect 3, and they failed to live up to the promise they made from the first game.

My only issue with using DA:O as a comparison is that DA:O's endgame was a conventional triumph over a conventional enemy (evil just for evil's sake).  And just as we may expect songs we hear to adhere to certain chord patterns, we expect our games to adhere to these conventions, too.  But it doesn't mean that they HAVE to, and in fact they often don't (John Coltrane, Jimi Hendrix).

Look, we all wanted to know just what was up with the Reapers.  Well guess what - there was this catalyst thing waiting in the Citadel's ivory tower, and once a lower species made it up there, then some hard choices about the galaxy had to be made...ok ok, it's rather dry compared to the grand space opera we had been experiencing.  But that's what they decided it would be.  Yeah, it's not so clever as a game's twist like KOTOR, or a movie's twist like The Sixth Sense, or as conventionally satisfying as DA:O, or even a measure of Shepard as a person the way you measured up Data in "The Measure Of A Man" - but now with the EC at least it manages to be better than the ending to "Lost", and actually wrap up the story. 

Games have an advantage over other creative works requiring the passage of time - gameplay.  Developers have a chance to consider and play-test how their gameplay mechanics might impact the endgame.  Perhaps more could have been done for ME3 in this area.

Modifié par jds1bio, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:06 .

[RenegonSQ]

Though I don't agree that the endings are TERRIBLE(they could have been handled better and didn't reflect the entire series as a whole, but I still found some enjoyment regardless), I do agree with the rest of your post.

I have a thread that has turned into a debate about the ending being planned vs it not being planned. Opinions are welcome

[nitefyre410]

darkchief10 wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I think the lack of planning became evident right at the beginning with the sudden focus on Earth.
Earth was barely mentioned at all in the previous installments, with the focus being on humans in the galaxy and that galaxy with it's various species as a whole.

Now suddenly it's all about Earth. Earth is special and Shepard is thinking about Earth all the time. That was a warning sign that things were going downhill, though I never thought it'd be as bad as it turned out.

I think the lack of planning is apparent all through ME2 actually...

Of course I enjoyed playing it, but very, very often I just thought..."The Reapers are coming, and I am recruiting these bunch of people to do exactly what again...? Shouldn't we unite the galaxy so we are prepared to fight them in part 3?"

I am no professional writer, but I have the feeling the "bridige" between ME1 and 3 should have focused on preparing the galaxy for the inevitable war so part 3 can focus entirely on this. For me the last DLC for ME2 had really started the war, leaving open a nasty cliff-hanger and then part 3 brings us fully into the war and the many horrors of the Reaper-invasion.

Hell, even the ultimate solution to defeat the reapers should have been an essential part of ME2 already, to maki it an already known focus in ME3, and leading to a proper finale ... without any kind of Starchild, mind you...

No, I think the writers only knew that there needed to be a war in the end with the Reapers, but were never really sure how to get there properly, not to speak about how to solve this problem in a way it feels naturally grown from the story itself...

honestly,I believe they started shutting out the true talent in that company, it was always casey hudson and drew kaparshyn, and look at the most iconic video games bioware made, including with mass effect 1, starting with mass effect 2 it became apparrent that something changed, changing him from lead writer to co lead writer, then abruptly sending him to austin to put star wars back on track instead of allowing him to finish his baby, then his suddne resignation a few months after? maybe i'm reading to much into this, but something clearly happened between mass effect 1 and the EA takeover to so radically change the relationship that hudson and kaparshyn had for so many years, for him to be gradually shut out of his own project like that...i smell a rat.

 


i agree -  ME 2 while I was like this great, I could not help but think at the end of game. "Wha the hell did all of this have to with stopping the Reapers"  ME 2 should have been setting the stage for the entire conflict and it did not do that at all.   I knew something was up with  Shepard dying for two years at the start of the game, that worst excuse of a time skip  I have seen. 

[The Angry One]

Vox Draco wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I think the lack of planning became evident right at the beginning with the sudden focus on Earth.
Earth was barely mentioned at all in the previous installments, with the focus being on humans in the galaxy and that galaxy with it's various species as a whole.

Now suddenly it's all about Earth. Earth is special and Shepard is thinking about Earth all the time. That was a warning sign that things were going downhill, though I never thought it'd be as bad as it turned out.

I think the lack of planning is apparent all through ME2 actually...

Of course I enjoyed playing it, but very, very often I just thought..."The Reapers are coming, and I am recruiting these bunch of people to do exactly what again...? Shouldn't we unite the galaxy so we are prepared to fight them in part 3?"

I am no professional writer, but I have the feeling the "bridige" between ME1 and 3 should have focused on preparing the galaxy for the inevitable war so part 3 can focus entirely on this. For me the last DLC for ME2 had really started the war, leaving open a nasty cliff-hanger and then part 3 brings us fully into the war and the many horrors of the Reaper-invasion.

Hell, even the ultimate solution to defeat the reapers should have been an essential part of ME2 already, to maki it an already known focus in ME3, and leading to a proper finale ... without any kind of Starchild, mind you...

No, I think the writers only knew that there needed to be a war in the end with the Reapers, but were never really sure how to get there properly, not to speak about how to solve this problem in a way it feels naturally grown from the story itself...

True, a lot of ME2 was fluff. But it still established some things like Cerberus, Reaper interest in humans, as well as the central antagnost (Harbinger).
ME2 only becomes a total waste of time with how ME3 turns out, because it completely ignores any plot threads established in ME2, not to mention completely mangling Cerberus to the point that they might as well be a brand new entity.

Modifié par The Angry One, 14 juillet 2012 - 05:25 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Snodgrass as in Measure of a Man Snodgrass?

Surely this is a fever dream.

[Tigerman123]

Yeah, I'm interested to hear what she thought of Edi and Legion's development

[themikefest]

@scriptbabe do you believe with the ending being messed up that it makes it hard for bioware to make a me4 with shepard and company if they choose?