255 réponses à ce sujet

[elitehunter34]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
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....

Maybe someone likes the combat of Mass Effect, but wants the story experience of a movie.  They don't want to play game x or y.  They want to play Mass Effect.  Not everyone has time to micromanage every conversation.  Some people only get maybe a couple hours a week to play games, so they want a simplified story experience. Arguably selecting dialogue options isn't going to take that long, but some people might want to cut out as much unnecessary time as possible.  So what if they want only the combat but not the choices.  Strange how you are so negative about Mass Effect's combat.  It's a big part of the game.  Honestly there aren't many games with combat like Mass Effect.  I can't think of one sci-fi squad based shooter with an emphasis on non-gun combat abilities.  Mass Effect without the decision making isn't just a generic sci fi shooter. It's a squad based sci fi action/shooter with a deep and interesting story, and a good story is something few games have.  What's wrong if some people want that experience?  You are losing nothing by this feature existing.

As for fan requests?  I can't personally give you any, but they want to appear to as broad an audience as possible, nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not taking away things from those who want the full RPG experience, and the existence of action mode doesn't take anything away from us.  

I know you're probably going to bring it up, but auto-dialogue is a seperate issue.  The existence of action mode didn't magically cause the existance of more auto-dialogue.  You might argue that the mindset that went into creating action mode caused them to put in more auto-dialogue, but personally unless you give me evidence from the devs themselves, theres no point arguing this.  Even then, if that mindset caused them to put in more auto-dialogue, action mode could have still easily existed without auto-dialogue.

Personally, I'd never use action mode because that would be taking out most of the game for me.  However, the choices are not the only part of the game I like.  It's still a game, and games need fun gameplay.

[Michelle Howe]

Domecoming wrote...

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.

Agreed that ME1 was plot driven and ME2 & ME3 were character driven. Those little moments with the characters were powerful. The plot was just there so we could get more time with the characters. xD

[TMA LIVE]

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.

My original idea was to never know why the Reapers are doing what they're doing, and just kill them because what they're doing is wrong. Simple as that.

And the ending would have Javik or Shepard be needed to work the Crucible. That the crucible was just a device created by the creators of the Reapers in order to control or destroy them, in case they lost control over them. Which the Protheans found, slightly changed it, and were planning on using it against the Reapers in the next cycle. That Javik's secret mission was to convince the cycle to build it, and then use it to Control the Reapers, so the Protheans would have a new Prothean empire. And if every prothean died, then the VI would allow someone like Shepard to use it. Otherwise, it only worked with a Prothean. And depending on how you changed Javik, Javik either sacrificed himself to kill the Reapers (Destroy forces the Citadel to explode because too much power is used to use that choice), or you where suppose to kill him in a fight, so he wouldn't take control over them.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 22 juillet 2012 - 04:16 .

[Arturia Pendragon]

TMA LIVE wrote...

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?

Organic life gravitates to doing as little work as possible to achieve whatever goal its seeking. Element Zero is a godsend for Newtonian/Einsteinian space travel. If EEZO and the relays are present, you can be damn sure that they'll get used.

Modifié par Arturia Pendragon, 22 juillet 2012 - 04:17 .

[TMA LIVE]

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

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?

Organic life gravitates to doing as little work as possible to achieve whatever goal its seeking. Element Zero is a godsend for Newtonian/Einsteinian space travel. If EEZO and the relays are present, you can be damn sure that they'll get used.

So why would the Reapers leave Relays and EEZO around then? Why not take those away too?

And that still doesn't excuse not leaving a note saying "Yo. Here's some Mass Effect technology. But when used, it's kind of going to burn up the galaxy. Maybe you should plan ahead?"

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 22 juillet 2012 - 04:19 .

[sporeian]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

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?

Organic life gravitates to doing as little work as possible to achieve whatever goal its seeking. Element Zero is a godsend for Newtonian/Einsteinian space travel. If EEZO and the relays are present, you can be damn sure that they'll get used.

So why would the Reapers leave Relays and EEZO around then? Why not take those away too?

And that still doesn't excuse not leaving a note saying "Yo. Here's some Mass Effect technology. But when used, it's kind of going to burn up the galaxy. Maybe you should plan ahead?"

That tends to be the main problem with the logic of The Dark Energy Ending and The Starchild Ending. Both can be summed up using the "Yo Dawg" meme

[Arturia Pendragon]

TMA LIVE wrote...

So why would the Reapers leave Relays and EEZO around then? Why not take those away too?

And that still doesn't excuse not leaving a note saying "Yo. Here's some Mass Effect technology. But when used, it's kind of going to burn up the galaxy. Maybe you should plan ahead?"

EEZO is natually occuring and the relays are "indestructible". Destroying a relay releases its energy, which acts similar to a supernova. Deactivating a relay still leaves it around to be studied. Until the Citadel is moved, the only instance of relocating a relay was when one got pushed in the wake of a supernova (it wasn't even damaged, just pushed).

How do you communicate with societies that don't even exist yet? What language do you use?

The following is pure head-canon regarding the possible DE plotline, take it as you will.

First, a quick summary of the Dark Energy problem. When an electric current is passed through Element Zero, it reduces an object's mass. As a side effect, an unknown amount of pollution in the form of Dark Energy is created. Dark Energy is described in ME2 as being able to shut down the fusion within a star, leading to its (extremely) early death, collapsing the star into a singularity (the fusion no longer counters the star's gravity) which will consume everything in its system. This works much like petroleum/CO2 on Earth today: burning petroleum as fuel creates carbon dioxide, which may or may not be causing the planet to heat up and eventually kill all life on its surface (human-caused climate change).

Outline of the plot:
 - The Reapers created the relays prior to learning about the DE problem.
 - The Reapers could not destroy the relays due to the events witnessed in Arrival.
 - War is the ultimate source of technological advancement.
 - Due to the "permanent" presence of the relays, the Reapers decide to enforce the cycle, eventually settling on every 50,000 years. This allows galactic society to reach a level of advancement to where they may be considering the creation of their own relays, which may or may not lead to their own discovery of the DE problem and the search for a solution. However, if society has not advanced to this level, the cycle continues.
 - Combating the Reapers during the cycle may lead to a spontaneous moment of insight and the creation of technology that may also help with the DE problem (ex: the Crucible).
 - The Reapers "ascend" the more advanced species in hopes that their knowledge and perspective may
help them find their answer, kiling off or enslaving the rest.

It's not perfect, nor does it fill in all the little holes that you may find, but I'm also not Drew Karpyshyn, nor am I a professional writer.

Modifié par Arturia Pendragon, 22 juillet 2012 - 04:32 .

[TMA LIVE]

sporeian wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

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?

Organic life gravitates to doing as little work as possible to achieve whatever goal its seeking. Element Zero is a godsend for Newtonian/Einsteinian space travel. If EEZO and the relays are present, you can be damn sure that they'll get used.

So why would the Reapers leave Relays and EEZO around then? Why not take those away too?

And that still doesn't excuse not leaving a note saying "Yo. Here's some Mass Effect technology. But when used, it's kind of going to burn up the galaxy. Maybe you should plan ahead?"

That tends to be the main problem with the logic of The Dark Energy Ending and The Starchild Ending. Both can be summed up using the "Yo Dawg" meme

Exactly.

[SpamBot2000]

elitehunter34 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
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....

Maybe someone likes the combat of Mass Effect, but wants the story experience of a movie.  They don't want to play game x or y.  They want to play Mass Effect.  Not everyone has time to micromanage every conversation.  Some people only get maybe a couple hours a week to play games, so they want a simplified story experience. Arguably selecting dialogue options isn't going to take that long, but some people might want to cut out as much unnecessary time as possible.  So what if they want only the combat but not the choices.  Strange how you are so negative about Mass Effect's combat.  It's a big part of the game.  Honestly there aren't many games with combat like Mass Effect.  I can't think of one sci-fi squad based shooter with an emphasis on non-gun combat abilities.  Mass Effect without the decision making isn't just a generic sci fi shooter. It's a squad based sci fi action/shooter with a deep and interesting story, and a good story is something few games have.  What's wrong if some people want that experience?  You are losing nothing by this feature existing.

As for fan requests?  I can't personally give you any, but they want to appear to as broad an audience as possible, nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not taking away things from those who want the full RPG experience, and the existence of action mode doesn't take anything away from us.  

I know you're probably going to bring it up, but auto-dialogue is a seperate issue.  The existence of action mode didn't magically cause the existance of more auto-dialogue.  You might argue that the mindset that went into creating action mode caused them to put in more auto-dialogue, but personally unless you give me evidence from the devs themselves, theres no point arguing this.  Even then, if that mindset caused them to put in more auto-dialogue, action mode could have still easily existed without auto-dialogue.

Personally, I'd never use action mode because that would be taking out most of the game for me.  However, the choices are not the only part of the game I like.  It's still a game, and games need fun gameplay.

I am actually only negative about the combat in ME3 because it's such a large part of the game. I'd prefer a richer RPG experience where not every single mission has to resolve into gunplay. The combat mechanics themselves are fine. 

I am in no position to give any direct evidence from the devs about what was decided in closed meetings. However, I can't see how privileging "the cinematic" qualities of a story could possibly NOT have any bearing on the multilinearity of the game. Time and resources are limited, and it would be impossible to craft a game of decent length at the current state of the platforms and given the release schedules imposed on developers that would support a wide variety of different playthroughs at the same quality of execution. Cinematic quality inevitably encroaches on player freedom. And Mac Walters has obviously made a choice between these approaches.

As for Mass Effect fans wanting to experience ME without varied choices and consequences: How did they come to be ME fans in the first place? The previous games, especially 1, certainly wouldn't have hooked many people by their combat action in itself.

That said, I have to admit to some personal resentment regarding the gradual transformation of ME from an RPG/TPS hybrid into a more linear shooter experience. It is just market logic, trying to appeal to a new demographic in addition to the previous fans. But nobody likes being taken for granted by developers, who are eroding the aspects of the original work that made you support it in the first place. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 22 juillet 2012 - 04:28 .

[elitehunter34]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
I am actually only negative about the combat in ME3 because it's such a large part of the game. I'd prefer a richer RPG experience where not every single mission has to resolve into gunplay. The combat mechanics themselves are fine. 

I am in no position to give any direct evidence from the devs about what was decided in closed meetings. However, I can't see how privileging "the cinematic" qualities of a story could possibly NOT have any bearing on the multilinearity of the game. Time and resources are limited, and it would be impossible to craft a game of decent length at the current state of the platforms and given the release schedules imposed on developers that would support a wide variety of different playthroughs at the same quality of execution. Cinematic quality inevitably encroaches on player freedom. And Mac Walters has obviously made a choice between these approaches.

As for Mass Effect fans wanting to experience ME without varied choices and consequences: How did they come to be ME fans in the first place? The previous games, especially 1, certainly wouldn't have hooked many people by their combat action in itself.

That said, I have to admit to some personal resentment regarding the gradual transformation of ME from an RPG/TPS hybrid into a more linear shooter experience. It is just market logic, trying to appeal to a new demographic in addition to the previous fans. But nobody likes being taken for granted by developers who are eroding the aspects of the original work that made you support it in the first place. 

I don't see how ME has transformed into an RPG/TPS hybrid into a more linear shooter experience.  If anything the only thing that is true is that there's less extended non-combat parts in story missions.  Missions themselves have always been extremely linear in the sense that there is not many branching paths.  In Mass Effect 1 the main quests certainly had a lot more dialogue which made the missions a lot longer. Really, the only non-combat missions we got were Thane and Samara's loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2.  Every other mission in Mass Effect has had most of the emphasis on combat.  I don't think the problem is as bad as you make it out to be.  The mission on Sur'kesh, Palavan, and definitely Priority: Earth all had at least one somewhat long non-combat scene.  Most of the non-combat stuff was handled in the War Room in Mass Effect 3, rather than in missions like the previous 2 games.  There weren't less character interactions than the previous games, and there was still plently of dialogue, although there was more auto-dialogue than some would like.  Why does it matter that the character interactions happened out of missions?  I don't disagree, though, longer missions with more non-combat scenes to mix it up are nice.  It's one of the things I really like about ME1.

If anything ME3 brought back a lot of the RPG elements that were missing from ME2 which was more abilities on characters, with the new split path on abilities that not even ME1 had, and it brought back weapon customization, albiet not to the extent I personally wanted them too.  Mass Effect 3 really did have the best of both in many areas, but it brought some new problems, mostly in the form of auto-dialogue.  That and the terrible ending, but it sure doesn't feel dumbed down to me.  ME3 still feels like Mass Effect.

[ld1449]

-Skorpious- wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Michelle Howe wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...Referring to Mac. You may believe the rumor is not founded but everyone saw the postage of the lead writer position up before it was swiftly removed. He is on his way out and good freaking riddance

I'm very confused right now. xD I have no idea what rumor you're talking about. Drew and Mac co-wrote ME2. ME3's lead writer was Mac. Neil was the senior writer. These are facts. >_>

a job listing for lead writer was posted by bioware ( in other words they are looking for a new lead writer) then when people noticed it was removed from the job listing page. Mark my words, Mac is on his way out....hopefully Casey is too

Casey has already been demoted from director to exec producer. I think for now, Gamble is unnoficially running the show

I have heard this before, but I have yet to see the statement backed up with evidence. I'm not doubting anybody, but I would appreciate some solid proof before I take the claim seriously. 

The podcast interview on the EC Jessica Merizian did with Casey and Mac. She specifically says "Hey everyone I'm here with Executive producer Casey Hudson and Lead writer Mac Walters"

So straight from the horses mouth so to speak=]

[sporeian]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Drew gave up halfway through.

You can't blame Mac for not ending the story the way Drew would've, because Drew wasn't around.

I don't think that Drew gave up.

I know he left, but the reason behind his departure to the ToR team is unknown to me.

[elitehunter34]

sporeian wrote...
I don't think that Drew gave up.

I know he left, but the reason behind his departure to the ToR team is unknown to me.

http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?page_id=63 

"I worked on the Mass Effect franchise for several years while living in Edmonton. But eventually I decided it would be better for me and my wife if we moved to Austin, Texas. Since the ME series was being developed in Edmonton, it wouldn’t have been feasible for me to continue on as lead writer. Instead, I transferred over to the Star Wars: The Old Republic team to work on it."

[sporeian]

elitehunter34 wrote...

sporeian wrote...
I don't think that Drew gave up.

I know he left, but the reason behind his departure to the ToR team is unknown to me.

http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?page_id=63 

"I worked on the Mass Effect franchise for several years while living in Edmonton. But eventually I decided it would be better for me and my wife if we moved to Austin, Texas. Since the ME series was being developed in Edmonton, it wouldn’t have been feasible for me to continue on as lead writer. Instead, I transferred over to the Star Wars: The Old Republic team to work on it."

That doesn't mean he gave up. WHY he felt it was better to move to Austin... 

[Shaigunjoe]

Michelle Howe wrote...

I heard about the Dark Energy ending a bit but I didn't know it was Drew's idea. Thanks for that. But before I knew it was Drew's, I thought that THAT idea made a lot more sense. Now I know why.

And don't get me wrong. I wanted to sit through about 15 minutes-30 minutes of (interactive?) cut-scenes for the ending to see how everything turned out, but... alas. I mean, that long of an ending seems modest for such a long series. : I was fully expecting that, but... nothing.

Don't believe everything you read, those quotes are actually not attributed to DK, just made up as far as anyone knows.

[SpamBot2000]

I wouldn't necessarily read too much into job titles in this particular business. That's all, not speculating on that issue one way or another.

[elitehunter34]

sporeian wrote...
That doesn't mean he gave up. WHY he felt it was better to move to Austin... 

I never said he did.  I was just answering your question.  He and his wife wanted to move, and he couldn't be the lead writer if he moved.  He probably wanted to stay as the lead writer, but it simply wasn't feasible it seems.

[flanny]

I don't share your opinion that drew is too conservative, in fact many of his games and books have had some great twists and curveballs, while i'm not sure if he was responsible for the collectors idea i do thing that it would be something he'd do

[ld1449]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I guess give up is the wrong way of putting it. He stopped working on it after ME2.

Still the point remains, how can you expect a story to stay consistent when there is two writers writing it?

That's like asking R.L Stine to finish a Homer tale.

Research.

If you're gonna take over a story do RESEARCH on the goddamn lore and ask questions to the original author. Mac got a "feel" for it, he didn't sit down and really get into it.

Hell he himself admited that during the writing process he had to look up many facts on the wiki to make sure he wouldn't contradict himself.

If a FAN of the series can recite everything of the ME lore off the top of his head the one writing it needs for damn sure to do a much better job of that and not need to look up the wiki save for a few minute details perhaps.

[flanny]

ld1449 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I guess give up is the wrong way of putting it. He stopped working on it after ME2.

Still the point remains, how can you expect a story to stay consistent when there is two writers writing it?

That's like asking R.L Stine to finish a Homer tale.

Research.

If you're gonna take over a story do RESEARCH on the goddamn lore and ask questions to the original author. Mac got a "feel" for it, he didn't sit down and really get into it.

Hell he himself admited that during the writing process he had to look up many facts on the wiki to make sure he wouldn't contradict himself.

If a FAN of the series can recite everything of the ME lore off the top of his head the one writing it needs for damn sure to do a much better job of that and not need to look up the wiki save for a few minute details perhaps.

this, my knowledge of fictional universe is quite worrying, like many people i enjoyed speaking to people about the universe and reading the codexs. i never got the feeling mac did any of that.

[dtox666]

I don't think the reasons for the ending are that complicated. I get the impression that it was the day before code-freeze and Mac (preferring to watch The Simpsons) asked his 8 year old, "Hey, can you write a good ending to the Mass Effect series for me, then brush your teeth and go to bed?" So his little 8 year old wrote "Shepard listens to a ghost boy talk about synthetics killing all organics for no real reason, and is then is given the choice: 1) Red Explosions 2) Green Explosions 3) Blue Explosions!!!111" EXPLOSIONS DAD!!! EXPLOSIONS!!!

Though the ending is laughably simple-minded, trite and ridiculous, I think it's pretty good for a sleepy 8 year old at bedtime!

[JeffZero]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Dark Energy was a force that was going to consume everything. According to Karpyshyn, "The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of its genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread."

The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."

This still doesn't change the main sticking point of fans: all of the recruitment, all of the alliances, all of the sacrifices, were essentially moot because they essentially were inconsequential to the resolution.

And as much as I generally enjoy Drew's work, this would have made the vanilla endings look good by comparison.

[ld1449]

dtox666 wrote...

I don't think the reasons for the ending are that complicated. I get the impression that it was the day before code-freeze and Mac (preferring to watch The Simpsons) asked his 8 year old, "Hey, can you write a good ending to the Mass Effect series for me, then brush your teeth and go to bed?" So his little 8 year old wrote "Shepard listens to a ghost boy talk about synthetics killing all organics for no real reason, and is then is given the choice: 1) Red Explosions 2) Green Explosions 3) Blue Explosions!!!111" EXPLOSIONS DAD!!! EXPLOSIONS!!!

Though the ending is laughably simple-minded, trite and ridiculous, I think it's pretty good for a sleepy 8 year old at bedtime!

Better than what Mac could have done full on at 12 noon sober and with a cup of coffee