255 réponses à ce sujet

[elitehunter34]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wouldn't want to get too far into speculating who wrote which bits. I think the normal writing process would involve all the writers making suggestions for each other any way. But it does seem that the parts I found absolutely the worst in the series are usually attributed to Mr. Walters. Mass Effect 2 is something of a mishmash, true, and somewhat detached from the events of ME1. But it could be argued that a trilogy would still work, assuming the final part would somehow manage to combine these seemingly separate pillars. And that just went completely out of the window with ME3. Furthermore the Arrival DLC is not just plain bad in itself (the railroading and autodialogue really started there, as well as the undermining of the story of ME1), but it also establishes a completely separate storyline apart from anything that took place within ME2 proper, which at least wrapped up the story of the Collectors. It looks a lot like a latecomer in charge forcefully stamping his mark on the whole, ruining what critics used to call "the organic unity" of the work.

Then we have ME3, for which Walters came up with the idea of the Action mode. To me at least, this speaks directly to his priorities in regards to storytelling. There is one planned path through the game, with all the choice that has been the hallmark of BioWare games since the original Baldur's Gate reduced to grudgingly allowing an inconsequential alternate dialogue line here and there. If this is not a radical design departure from the BW tradition, I don't know what is. AND there's the ending he apparently kept from the commentary of the rest of the writing team, likely because their probable concern for the narrative continuity of the trilogy would have complicated ramming it down the throat of this once truly great series to make a crude full stop.

So what we have here is no longer the BioWare I was a fan of. I see no reason to continue funding the imposture.

I see absolutely no problem with the action mode.  Some people want the gameplay but want to watch a story instead of acting it out.  You don't have to use the action mode.  Just because it exists is proof that they put less effort into the story.  Correlation does not equal causation.  They were just putting in a feature that apparantly was requested by the fans.

The ending though?  Yeah it's still awful.  I really really want to believe that only Casey and Mac did it without peer review.  It means that the other writers might not agree with the current ending and want to change it.  I don't want an end to the Mass Effect universe.  I want to continue to explore a galaxy in the aftermath of a Reaper war.  I don't want to speculate.

[Arturia Pendragon]

Mac Walters is a character writer, Drew Karpyshyn is a story writer.

This is why the main plot of ME1 is the driving force for the game, while the smaller character arcs are the focus of ME2. ME3 was Mac's attempt to focus more on the story than the characters, yet the smaller character-driven scenes are still the most powerful aspects of the game.

Modifié par Arturia Pendragon, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:13 .

[Michelle Howe]

 

essarr71 wrote...

How are the Collectors being Reaperized Protheans a Dues Ex?

 

I had meant this as it gave me the same feeling as a dues ex machina. It's just sorta dropped on you. It also could be argued that it is a genuine dues ex machina in that it solves the problem with killing/wiping out another race. They're enslaved Reaper husks of Prohians so it's entirely Paragon to destroy their entire civilization.

TMA LIVE wrote...

Well, from an outsider perspective, and as a guy who has read Drew's books and Mac's comics, I'd say Drew is more focused on trying to tell a plot of events. And he sometimes does a good job (Revelation and Ascension). And sometimes he doesn't (Retribution). Which is why ME1 felt like it had a more focused story. But is main weakness is characters. He doesn't know how to write cool characters, or barely pulls off good to average characters. And when he is doing a good job, he dumps them or screws them up later. Example, he wrote Liara in ME1, and honestly, despite being a Liara fan, I never was happy with ME1 Liara. From the moment you pick her up, majority of her character development is her trying to romance you. She could've helped kill her mother, but instead she's more focused on describing Asari sex. His bad guys are typically evil, and his good guys are typically good. And a lot of ME1's choices were very "This is the good guy choice" and "This is the bad guy choice".

While Mac on the other hand is more focused on characters then plot. Out of all the comics he's written himself, the plots a very basic. They're nothing special, and more of just devices to setup events. And if you look at ME3, majority of that story is following ME1 plot points. You go from picking up a Prothean something being stolen from a rogue group, to going to the Citadel to talk to the Council, then going all over the Galaxy to find a missing Prothean piece. Then discover another beacon, which holds the final piece. But then bad guy shows up, and gets away with it. Said bad guy is also studying indoctrination. A prothean VI tells you the Citadel is important. You get to it by running to a Conduit. Then meet bad guy inside, and convince him to blow his brains out.

But what Mac does excel at is focusing on the characters then the story and developing them. ME3 had Shepard do the most emoting, and going through the most personal stuff. It's the one with the most emotional scenes. It's the one where the characters are put in the most harms way, and you care more about them. Or feel a lost from their sacrifice. He also created and develop the more popular characters, like Garrus, Wrex, Liara, Hackett, Aria, TIM, and Anderson. And ME the series had more focus on grey choices instead of simply good or bad choices. Where any choice could backfire. And a lot more darker things happened. Like Shepard sacrificing an entire system in Arrival.

So you can make an argument that Mass Effect would've been better if they both were Lead Writers instead of separate writers. Because it seems they complete each other, and fill in their weaknesses.

That is absolutely fabulous if that was really Mac. Though remember that Drew said he feels there's a lot attributed to him that was really a team effort. Same is true of Mac. Still, they were the guiding force. If Mac did Shepard's ME3 story, he did a REALLY good job up until the end. I felt stressed out thoughout the entire game. It was really well written. Whoever wrote Garrus' story deserves a medal.

Modifié par Michelle Howe, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:16 .

[TMA LIVE]

Those who speak about how one ending is better then the other, honestly I don't know how you'd say that, since they're pretty much the same ending. The difference is, instead of Star Kid, it was Harb appearing to you, and exposition dumping a galaxy problem that needed a solution, and giving you choices (which the writers at Comic Con claim they tried using for that scene, but it didn't work. Technically it might still be Harb, just in kid form). Instead of Synthetics vs Organics, it was dark energy pollution destroying the galaxy (which the Reapers apparently help create by giving every new cycle a head start in...). And instead of Synthesis, Destroy, and Control being the final choices, you had Galaxy doomed, but you beat the Reapers. Or surrender, and a lot of people die to save the galaxy (which I don't know why people think that's better then killing robots with feelings or controlling the Reapers, but whatever. I guess people prefer everyone's doomed to die no matter what?). Beyond that, it's pretty much the same ending.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:18 .

[Arturia Pendragon]

Michelle Howe wrote...

That is absolutely fabulous if that was really Mac. Though remember that Drew said he feels there's a lot attributed to him that was really a team effort. Same is true of Mac. Still, they were the guiding force. If Mac did Shepard's ME3 story, he did a REALLY good job up until the end. I felt stressed out thoughout the entire game. It was really well written. Whoever wrote Garrus' story deserves a medal.

Mac Walters created and scripted Garrus Vakarian, Urdnot Wrex, and the Illusive Man. BioWare really should have just let him continue what he does best and probably shouldn't have asked him to take over for Drew.

[Michelle Howe]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Those who speak about how one ending is better then the other, honestly I don't know how you'd say that, since they're pretty much the same ending. The difference is, instead of Star Kid, it was Harb appearing to you, and exposition dumping a galaxy problem that needed a solution, and giving you choices (which the writers at Comic Con claim they tried using for that scene, but it didn't work. Technically it might still be Harb, just in kid form). Instead of Synthetics vs Organics, it was Biotic pollution destroying the galaxy (which the Reapers apparently help create by giving every new cycle a head start in). And instead of Synthesis, Destroy, and Control being the final choices, you had Galaxy doomed, but you beat the Reapers. Or surrender, and a lot of people die to save the galaxy (which I don't know why people think that's better then killing robots with feelings or controlling the Reapers, but whatever. I guess people prefer everyone's doomed to die no matter what?). Beyond that, it's pretty much the same ending.

We don't actually know how that ending would have played out excatly, so no one can really say one way or the other. But using Harbinger instead of Star Child would keep within known characters. Still, Harbinger HELPING doesn't... set right. xD; But I don't think that'd do that without a good reason (if Drew was at the helm, anyway).

Still, it's what might have been at this point. I have head canon to get some closure, personally. xD;

[Arturia Pendragon]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Those who speak about how one ending is better then the other, honestly I don't know how you'd say that, since they're pretty much the same ending. The difference is, instead of Star Kid, it was Harb appearing to you, and exposition dumping a galaxy problem that needed a solution, and giving you choices (which the writers at Comic Con claim they tried using for that scene, but it didn't work. Technically it might still be Harb, just in kid form). Instead of Synthetics vs Organics, it was dark energy pollution destroying the galaxy (which the Reapers apparently help create by giving every new cycle a head start in...). And instead of Synthesis, Destroy, and Control being the final choices, you had Galaxy doomed, but you beat the Reapers. Or surrender, and a lot of people die to save the galaxy (which I don't know why people think that's better then killing robots with feelings or controlling the Reapers, but whatever. I guess people prefer everyone's doomed to die no matter what?). Beyond that, it's pretty much the same ending.

The difference is that the RGB flashlight ending is a contrived farce with no basis in the established plot, while the Dark Energy ending was being set up by the plot before Drew got transferred to BioWare Austin to work on The Old Republic. I can only assume that had the DE ending been set in stone, the plotline of ME3 would have made for a completely different game.

Modifié par Arturia Pendragon, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:28 .

[SpamBot2000]

elitehunter34 wrote...

I see absolutely no problem with the action mode.  Some people want the gameplay but want to watch a story instead of acting it out.  You don't have to use the action mode.  Just because it exists is proof that they put less effort into the story.  Correlation does not equal causation.  They were just putting in a feature that apparantly was requested by the fans.

People who want to watch a story without making choices have PLENTY of games to choose from. And it does suggest Mr. Walters' vision of what games should be when looked at in conjunction with his work in "streamlining" ME in Arrival and 3. And he certainly didn't mention any fan requests when talking about coming up with it in any interview I've seen. I'd love to see a single one. I have a hard time imagining any. "Dear BioWare, I am a huge fan of your RPGs that allow you to choose your responses to events, with meaningful consequences to your actions. However, I would like you to remove them and give us a generic Space Marine shooter, because I ca't find any games like at the store." Hmm....

[The Angry One]

This dark energy plot was still just an outline you know. It certainly had it's flaws, but it's funny how even a rough outline stands up better than spacebaby's utter nonsense.

[TMA LIVE]

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Those who speak about how one ending is better then the other, honestly I don't know how you'd say that, since they're pretty much the same ending. The difference is, instead of Star Kid, it was Harb appearing to you, and exposition dumping a galaxy problem that needed a solution, and giving you choices (which the writers at Comic Con claim they tried using for that scene, but it didn't work. Technically it might still be Harb, just in kid form). Instead of Synthetics vs Organics, it was dark energy pollution destroying the galaxy (which the Reapers apparently help create by giving every new cycle a head start in...). And instead of Synthesis, Destroy, and Control being the final choices, you had Galaxy doomed, but you beat the Reapers. Or surrender, and a lot of people die to save the galaxy (which I don't know why people think that's better then killing robots with feelings or controlling the Reapers, but whatever. I guess people prefer everyone's doomed to die no matter what?). Beyond that, it's pretty much the same ending.

The difference is that the RGB flashlight ending is a contrived farce with no basis in the established plot, while the Dark Energy ending was being set up by the plot before Drew got transferred to BioWare Austin to work on The Old Republic. I can only assume that had the DE ending been set in stone, the plotline of ME3 would have made for a completely different game.

I don't know how Dark Engery is better just because it was setup, while Synthetics vs Organics isn't. Because you can argue that was also setup throughout the series, by constently running into rogue VI's and AI's, the Heritics, Legion and Edi, to make you feel one way or another about them. I mean, you can setup a shiity ending. Setup doesn't make it better.

[TMA LIVE]

The Angry One wrote...

This dark energy plot was still just an outline you know. It certainly had it's flaws, but it's funny how even a rough outline stands up better than spacebaby's utter nonsense.

Turning people into organic space squids is a better solution for a pollution problem? That's not nonesense?

Again, it's the same ending. They both involve flaw AI gone wrong.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:34 .

[SpamBot2000]

Frankly, I'm not THAT crazy about the dark energy plot either. I just can't help thinking that this inflexible ramming down of a torch job could have been avoided.

[The Angry One]

TMA LIVE wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

This dark energy plot was still just an outline you know. It certainly had it's flaws, but it's funny how even a rough outline stands up better than spacebaby's utter nonsense.

Turning people into organic space squids is a better solution for a pollution problem? That's not nonesense?

Again, it's the same ending. They both involve flaw AI gone wrong.

Essentially if that's the only way they can gain the computational power to stop the universe from going bye bye then it is at least a viable reason, however revolting the solution is.
However, again, this was just a plot outline. Given it would've actually used the Haestrom foreshadowing as well as make the human Reaper actually relevant it might've worked with some fleshing out.

Modifié par The Angry One, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:36 .

[Michelle Howe]

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

Michelle Howe wrote...

That is absolutely fabulous if that was really Mac. Though remember that Drew said he feels there's a lot attributed to him that was really a team effort. Same is true of Mac. Still, they were the guiding force. If Mac did Shepard's ME3 story, he did a REALLY good job up until the end. I felt stressed out thoughout the entire game. It was really well written. Whoever wrote Garrus' story deserves a medal.

Mac Walters created and scripted Garrus Vakarian, Urdnot Wrex, and the Illusive Man. BioWare really should have just let him continue what he does best and probably shouldn't have asked him to take over for Drew.

I guess the reason I don't appreciate Wrex or the Illusive Man as much is because I tend to not like Wrex's bruiser attitude and I didn't read the comics about the Illusive Man. Still, I honestly like them both and can see why they're fan favorites.

Garrus, though... well... fc06.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2008/016/8/c/ME_Alternate_FemShepard_by_aimo.jpgCan you guess which one I like? xD

Modifié par Michelle Howe, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:45 .

[ZLurps]

Accidentally posted this in the wrong topic (too many tabs open).

I think Drew has more influence from old sci-fi novels and such things can create fantastic worlds and plausible technologies. Indoctrination for example is IMO a master piece.

Walters seems to be more like a character writer and likes to bend to rules of universe rather than let those things become obstacles for his characters.

Drew wrote novels, Walters wrote comics, I think both have their strenghts and weaknesses, even though I personally prefer novels.

[TMA LIVE]

The Angry One wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

This dark energy plot was still just an outline you know. It certainly had it's flaws, but it's funny how even a rough outline stands up better than spacebaby's utter nonsense.

Turning people into organic space squids is a better solution for a pollution problem? That's not nonesense?

Again, it's the same ending. They both involve flaw AI gone wrong.

Essentially if that's the only way they can gain the computational power to stop the universe from going bye bye then it is at least a viable reason, however revolting the solution is.

How about people not use Dark Energy? Or be given each cycle a heads up tip, so they can try to find a less toxic solution?

[TMA LIVE]

I mean, if a Human Reaper could solve it, that kind of means a solution could've been made years ago, if only the Reapers gave each cycle a heads up. I mean, does a giant organic robot have to be made, just to what? Suck up biotic pollution? And how does Human goo make it special?

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[TMA LIVE]

I mean, do people just prefer the ME series being a "Don't pollute" message?

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:50 .

[The Angry One]

I'd take "don't pollute" over "the tech singularity will KILL US ALL!".

Though I'd rather no convoluted reasons for the Reapers' actions at all.

[TMA LIVE]

I prefer "Whatever the AI kid is saying is wrong, and I control or kill it. So sorry Edi." then "Clearly I need to do what the Reapers are telling me, or the galaxy is screwed".

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:52 .

[LinksOcarina]

The Angry One wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

This dark energy plot was still just an outline you know. It certainly had it's flaws, but it's funny how even a rough outline stands up better than spacebaby's utter nonsense.

Turning people into organic space squids is a better solution for a pollution problem? That's not nonesense?

Again, it's the same ending. They both involve flaw AI gone wrong.

Essentially if that's the only way they can gain the computational power to stop the universe from going bye bye then it is at least a viable reason, however revolting the solution is.
However, again, this was just a plot outline. Given it would've actually used the Haestrom foreshadowing as well as make the human Reaper actually relevant it might've worked with some fleshing out.

But since it is an outline, it serves no bearing onto the quality of the current ending. You can't compare them since we don't have a finished product, and you certainly can't say in hindsight one is better over the other without a such comparison.

As for the two authors...I don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole...but I will say that Walters is a more natural writer in terms of dialouge, while Drew K tends to explain a lot of information for you. As for scenarios...well, both of them did good in my book. 

But let's face it, the Reapers as a plot point is the issue here, so whoever came up with that should know better next time. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:52 .

[Michelle Howe]

The Angry One wrote...

I'd take "don't pollute" over "the tech singularity will KILL US ALL!".

Though I'd rather no convoluted reasons for the Reapers' actions at all.

 Personally, I'd rather it be them simply using organic life as a fuel source and with their own twisted respect for life by trying to preserve it in goo form. xD; Simple. And the cruicble could have been a shut down code or whatever. Lots of explosions of Reapers being blown out of the sky, etc. Would have been a great cinematic.

With a boss fight, a code that shut down Harbinger, who's the core hub for all Reapers and Shep and co have to go in and take down the core to shutdown ALL reapers. Would have kept to the traditions set by ME1 & 2 and kept the conclusion more "down to earth", so to speak, like the others. ME1 ended with the reaper exploding. ME2 with the collector base. Now give us lots of explosions and the satisfaction of seeing them blown out of the sky. xD

So to speak, anyway. I wouldn't mind something else, but I'm just saying something like this would have been acceptable.

Modifié par Michelle Howe, 22 juillet 2012 - 03:54 .

[Raging_Pulse]

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

Mac Walters is a character writer, Drew Karpyshyn is a story writer.

This is why the main plot of ME1 is the driving force for the game, while the smaller character arcs are the focus of ME2. ME3 was Mac's attempt to focus more on the story than the characters, yet the smaller character-driven scenes are still the most powerful aspects of the game.

^^This. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[SpamBot2000]

Michelle Howe wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'd take "don't pollute" over "the tech singularity will KILL US ALL!".

Though I'd rather no convoluted reasons for the Reapers' actions at all.

 Personally, I'd rather it be them simply using organic life as a fuel source and with their own twisted respect for life by trying to preserve it in goo form. xD; Simple. And the cruicble could have been a shut down code or whatever. Lots of explosions of Reapers being blown out of the sky, etc. Would have been a great cinematic.

With a boss fight, a code that shut down Harbinger, who's the core hub for all Reapers and Shep and co have to go in and take down the core to shutdown ALL reapers. Would have kept to the traditions set by ME1 & 2 and kept the conclusion more "down to earth", so to speak, like the others. ME1 ended with the reaper exploding. ME2 with the collector base. Now give us lots of explosions and the satisfaction of seeing them blown out of the sky. xD

So to speak, anyway. I wouldn't mind something else, but I'm just saying something like this would have been acceptable.

Well... yeah. Exactly.