80611 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

protognosis wrote...

Hanar. Stop using "retarded" it is offensive and only strives to turn people off from reading your posts.

I did not call anyone retarded. :S

The only thing I called retarded is the rachni-queen subplot in ME3. If that offends you than seriously, learn to deal with it. I find some things in ME3 retarded and I don't see why that should offend you.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 10 août 2012 - 11:05 .

[Lyria]

Its your word choice. Not that you find things messed up. And I don't have to deal with it.

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

As someone who, you know, actually has taken an actual logic class within the last month, I will show you what REAL logic is.

Ah, Mr. Dynas, someone who conveniently always has studied everything and seemingly knows a lot about every subject. You never fail to boast about yourself and put yourself on a pedestal, do you? I've seen your discussions with the other folks here. You must think you are so smart and awesome.

Well Mr. Dynas, please share your wisdom with this humble person who is but merely a game-designer who just so happens to have taken a class in writing (for video-games), so what do I know? You probably know a lot more about it than me, because you always know more than anyone else in this thread. Please enlighten us dumb folks with your knowledge Mr. Dynas, please do.

Your example is what is known as circular logic.

Please do explain why you think that Mr. Dynas.

You make the assumption that the writing in ME3 is bad (which is entirely subjective and a personal opinion.) and attempt to use it to prove your conclusion, which lacks in any other kind of support. 

Wrong Mr. Dynas. I do not make the assumption that the writing in ME3 is bad. I actually observe that the ME3 writing is bad. When I play ME3, I observe that the writing in that game factually breaks a lot of basic rules. Rules that I have been taught about writing and rules that should not be broken if you want to keep your story from falling apart of becomming an incoherent mess.

And no, I'm not going to write another entire essay on why the Mass Effect writing is factually bad, because I already did so several times on this forum, in several threads. I don't feel like repeating myself over and over and over again.

The logic you are GOING for is this;

The writers of Mass Effect 3 are bad.
Bad writers create bad writing.

Therefore; The writing in mass effect is bad.

Wrong again Mr. Dynas. The logic I'm going for is this:

The writing in ME3 is bad. I see a lot of rookie mistakes in the writing of ME3.
Bad writing and rookie mistakes are often made by bad or rookie writers.

Therefor; The writers of Mass Effect are most likely bad or rookie writers.


So you already made 2 errors. Your first error was to assume I have no reason to think ME3's writing is bad other than my own opinion. Your second error is misrepresenting my case.

Since the rest of your post is based on a strawman, I feel no need to continue. Please come back to me when you get it right.


Edit: I want to add one more thing though. Whether the bad writing in ME3 is a result of bad planning, a result from pressure from EA, or the result from the writers just not being all that good, or a combination of all 3, it doesn't matter. What matters is that ME3's writing is a mess, a mess that cannot be fixed with an indoctrination theory. In fact, I dare say the IT would make the ME3 story only even more messy.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 10 août 2012 - 11:34 .

[MaximizedAction]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*snip*

The writing in ME3 is bad. I see a lot of rookie mistakes in the writing of ME3.
Bad writing and rookie mistakes are often made by bad or rookie writers.

Therefor; The writers of Mass Effect are most likely bad or rookie writers.

*snip*

You like reading, right? If so, please read your way through this and then you come back and explain how this ending can possibly happen out of nothing.

If you don't read it, you have no reason to be taken seriously. If you do read it but stick to your claim that the writing is bad, then you have no idea how the professional industry works. (I don't claim to know it, but I've read my way through different blogs of professional writers)

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 10 août 2012 - 11:40 .

[Lyria]

MaximizedAction wrote...

For anyone with an open mind, still wondering whether it truly could've been bad writing, this is one of the various analysis that caused me to find out about IT (it's not dealing about IT but just objectively analysing the ending from literary theory; long read but it open my eyes):

jmstevenson.me/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

Im bumping this for Hanar. From a writer's perspective ME3 failed at the end. As a writer, I agree with this guy. The article has some good points. 

Edit: ninjas.

Modifié par protognosis, 10 août 2012 - 11:46 .

[TSA_383]

Flog61 wrote...

Guys, i've just checked back here after 2 days: 100 new pages.

Has something really interesting been discovered? Or is it just off topicness?

I posted up some dialogue that's bizarrely been packaged into the firefight DLC.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*snip*

The writing in ME3 is bad. I see a lot of rookie mistakes in the writing of ME3.
Bad writing and rookie mistakes are often made by bad or rookie writers.

Therefor; The writers of Mass Effect are most likely bad or rookie writers.

*snip*

Would you care to sum up those Rookie mistakes? Because rigtht now you are simply speaking like almost every other non believer, coming in here and making claims without ever backing them up.

[The Heretic of Time]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*snip*

The writing in ME3 is bad. I see a lot of rookie mistakes in the writing of ME3.
Bad writing and rookie mistakes are often made by bad or rookie writers.

Therefor; The writers of Mass Effect are most likely bad or rookie writers.

*snip*

You like reading, right? If so, please read your way through this and then you come back and explain how this ending can possibly happen out of nothing.

If you don't read it, you have no reason to be taken seriously. If you do read it but stick to your claim that the writing is bad, then you have no idea how the professional industry works. (I don't claim to know it, but I've read my way through different blogs of professional writers)

I will read it, but I'm not going to play your game that is obviously rigged against me.

Either I don't read it, and I'll not be taken seriously.
Or I do read it, and I have no idea how the porffesional industry works, even though I'm part of that industry myself?


In other words, I have to agree with you that the writing in ME3 is not bad, or else I lose? Like you said, you know nothing about the industry, so why should I take your word for it?

If you've ben reading blogs of professional writers, than I'm hella sure you've also saw plenty of blog posts from porfessional writers that explain why the writing in ME3 is so bad. Hell, you don't even need to go out there to search for blogs from professionals who explain why the writing in ME3 is bad, a professional already took his views and explanation to us, the BSN! So, I now will do the same to you as you did to me. Read this: http://social.biowar.../index/11435886

If you don't read it, you have no reason to be taken seriously. If you do read it but stick to your claim that the writing is good, then you have no idea how the professional industry works.


I hope you now realize how silly your post is and that you really are not in the position to tell me whether I know or don't know how the professional industry works.

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*shakes head* I don't even know why I attempt to bother with you.

Usually I take a lost cause as a challenge.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 10 août 2012 - 12:22 .

[Lyria]

Arian, quick! To the Quote Pyramid machine!

[TSA_383]

IT thread mark III: 2600 views/day.
My new thread: 6000 views/day.

Heh
http://social.biowar.../index/13557262

There's actually some interesting discussion in there, along with some seriously ****ed logic...

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

As someone who, you know, actually has taken an actual logic class within the last month, I will show you what REAL logic is.

Ah, Mr. Dynas, someone who conveniently always has studied everything and seemingly knows a lot about every subject. You never fail to boast about yourself and put yourself on a pedestal, do you? I've seen your discussions with the other folks here. You must think you are so smart and awesome.

Well Mr. Dynas, please share your wisdom with this humble person who is but merely a game-designer who just so happens to have taken a class in writing (for video-games), so what do I know? You probably know a lot more about it than me, because you always know more than anyone else in this thread. Please enlighten us dumb folks with your knowledge Mr. Dynas, please do.

First off, don't call me Mister. My middle name is not period, nor is my last name T.

Your attempt at mocking does not become you, and merely inspires pity that you are reduced to using playground insults. If you're going to attempt to mock me, go for the good stuff. Merely indicating I am a liar is ameturish at best. Calling me prideful and arrogant, pshht, I already am aware of many of my character flaws, thank you oh so very much. You aren't telling me anything I don't know.

I know for a fact I am not perfect, in fact, unlike yourself, I have little issue admitting when I am wrong, and know it. I am capable of an apology, for one.

But, if you want my credentials, fine.

College educated, Anthropology major, subset archaeology, with studies in Philosophy, Psychology and literature. Novel writer in my spare time, occasional fencer, swimmer and acrobat. Accomplished singer, Renaissance Man, I dabble in chemistry, biology, logic, history, astronomy, mythology, theology, philosophy (from the Greek, meaning "Love of Wisdom", Philo sophia.) and sociology, with an understanding of business and politics. Dabble in art in my spare time, paint, draw, sculpt, an occasional doggrel of poetry, previously experimented with photography, but found it not to my liking. Experiment with other languages, though none to any true proficiency, with perhaps the exception of a slight smattering of Russian.

Honors student throughout highschool, paid for my college education with scholarships and Pell Grants alone, Lincoln Douglas Debate Champion for my highschool, spent a few months running with a Renaissance Faire as a booth salesman. I enjoy education, as well as the retention of semi-useless information. The majority of what I do state and quote is drawn from the cavernous recesses of my own mind, though I will admit when I do need occasional research to jog my memory. Exceptional recall of things that interest me, which of course, would be the reason that I have entirely forgotten trigonometry, with the exception of the Pythagorean theorem, due to the fact that I recall Pythagoras being a rather obsessive compulsive nutball.

There. My "credentials" good sir, now you know where I come from. I don't just love knowledge, I love to spread it, what I do I don't try to do for my own glory, but that of information, which, as Francis Bacon said; "Sciencia Potetia est." "Knowledge is its own power." and I like power.

I will happily admit when I am faced with a true expert, being a Jack-of-all trades myself, and will step aside. You however, do not qualify for a position.

What you call "videogame writing" I call hack writing. There is no difference on what to write between mediums. Merely what method to write it in. If it's a movie or a videogame, it's a script. If you want to stick it between two covers, you write it as a novella. Either way, a story can have the same depth no matter it's medium, and I am gravely insulted by this notion that some mediums apparently are superior to others.

Also, one class. That's cute. Try an entire course, with studies in your off time, just because it interests you, then see what you recall then.

Your example is what is known as circular logic.

Please do explain why you think that Mr. Dynas.

If your primate brain was incapable of listening to me the first time, I won't waste yet more of my time attempting to explain it to you.

You make the assumption that the writing in ME3 is bad (which is entirely subjective and a personal opinion.) and attempt to use it to prove your conclusion, which lacks in any other kind of support. 

Wrong Mr. Dynas. I do not make the assumption that the writing in ME3 is bad. I actually observe that the ME3 writing is bad. When I play ME3, I observe that the writing in that game factually breaks a lot of basic rules. Rules that I have been taught about writing and rules that should not be broken if you want to keep your story from falling apart of becomming an incoherent mess.

And no, I'm not going to write another entire essay on why the Mass Effect writing is factually bad, because I already did so several times on this forum, in several threads. I don't feel like repeating myself over and over and over again.

All of which is, as I said, entirely subjective. You have no example you can hold up and have everyone unilaterally agree "Yes, this was bad writing." yet your premise entirely bases itself on such an assumption.

The logic you are GOING for is this;

The writers of Mass Effect 3 are bad.
Bad writers create bad writing.

Therefore; The writing in mass effect is bad.

Wrong again Mr. Dynas. The logic I'm going for is this:

The writing in ME3 is bad. I see a lot of rookie mistakes in the writing of ME3.
Bad writing and rookie mistakes are often made by bad or rookie writers.

Therefor; The writers of Mass Effect are most likely bad or rookie writers.

Funny. I don't see a Pulitzer medal with your name on it. What are these "rookie mistakes"? Please do, enlighten me oh wise and omniscient being of pure wisdom.

So you already made 2 errors. Your first error was to assume I have no reason to think ME3's writing is bad other than my own opinion. Your second error is misrepresenting my case.

Since the rest of your post is based on a strawman, I feel no need to continue. Please come back to me when you get it right.

I responded only to what you have said. Learn what a strawman argument is before you accuse someone of using one.

Edit: I want to add one more thing though. Whether the bad writing in ME3 is a result of bad planning, a result from pressure from EA, or the result from the writers just not being all that good, or a combination of all 3, it doesn't matter. What matters is that ME3's writing is a mess, a mess that cannot be fixed with an indoctrination theory. In fact, I dare say the IT would make the ME3 story only even more messy.

Then I can look forward to anything that you write lacking entirely in interpretive value.

In short, I have had quite enough of your sophistry MISTER Heretic.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 10 août 2012 - 12:21 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*snip*

The writing in ME3 is bad. I see a lot of rookie mistakes in the writing of ME3.
Bad writing and rookie mistakes are often made by bad or rookie writers.

Therefor; The writers of Mass Effect are most likely bad or rookie writers.

*snip*

Would you care to sum up those Rookie mistakes? Because rigtht now you are simply speaking like almost every other non believer, coming in here and making claims without ever backing them up.

*sigh* I already did this so many times. I even made an entire thread about it in the past. But fine, I'll make a brief and to the point list.


Before I can make my list, I have to explain a bit about writing first. A good and classic story has 5 points. The 5 points are these: 1. exposition, 2. conflict. 3. turning point, 4. climax, 5. resolution

To put it bluntly: The exposition is when you introduce the world and characters. The conflict is when something happens that initiates the protagonist's journey. The turning point is when the story takes a new direction. The climax is the final confrontation between the protagonist and the antagonist. The resolution is when everything gets wrapped up and gets closure.

Knowing that, lets look at what ME3 specifically did wrong:

1. Introducing another turning point after the climax. The battle for earth started the climax and it ended with the confrontation with TIM. After that, the story only needed a resolution. But no, wait, BioWare thought it was genius to add another plottwist, introducing the Catalyst! This is bad writing unless you have a damn good reason for breaking the story-structure and introducing a new plot point after the climax.

2. Introducing new characters after the climax. You just don't do that. Everything should already be open on the table when the climax starts. You know what the stakes are, you know what you have to do, the antagonist knows what he's going to do, and now you're going to do it. It's the final clash and now everything that has been build up t this point will get resolved. Any professional writer would advice highly against introducing new characters at this point, let alone introducing new character AFTER this point.

3. The Catalyst is a Deus Ex Machina. Okay, so not only do we get a sudden new plot twist after the climax, not only are we introduced to a completely new character at the end, he literally acts like a Deus Ex Machina! He explains us everything that the story of ME3 so far left unexplained, then out of the blue does he offer us 3 choices, of which 2 of those 3 choices come completely out of the blue! The Destroy option makes sense, it's something the entire ME3 story has been building up to from the beginning. It's the goal of the protagonist, it's what we are expected to do. But Control and Synthesis make no sense and completely come out of the blue. The entire story we have been told that we can't control the Reapers, now all of the sudden we can? DAFUQ? And Synthesis... I don't even have words for Synthesis. It supposedly the "perfect solution", but it really comes falling out of the sky completely out of the blue, a true Deus Ex Machina. I mean sure, we had Saren who also wished to merge organics and synthetics and the reapers themselves are basically synthesised organics too, but a magical button that magically turns the entire galaxy into cyborgs? That's just a total Deus Ex Machina.

4. The Crucible. The ultimate McGuffin. It's supposedly the solution against the reapers. Okay, not only is it bad writing to introduce the solution to the antagonist early in the story (you usually do that during the turning point), it also came completely out of the blue! Where is the foreshadowing of the Crucible?
Introducing the solution to your antagonist early in the story and not giving us any foreshadowing of this solution in the previous games, that's just bad writing, most professional writers will tell you that. Not to mention that introducing a McGuffin as a solution is incredibly cheap. THe fact that we CONVENIENTLY find this McGuffin at EXACTLY the right moment at EXACTLY the right place... I would almost say that this qualifies as another Deus Ex Machina.


I could go on like this, but I wanted to keep this short. So I'll give you these 4 points to ponder about.

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*snip*

The writing in ME3 is bad. I see a lot of rookie mistakes in the writing of ME3.
Bad writing and rookie mistakes are often made by bad or rookie writers.

Therefor; The writers of Mass Effect are most likely bad or rookie writers.

*snip*

Would you care to sum up those Rookie mistakes? Because rigtht now you are simply speaking like almost every other non believer, coming in here and making claims without ever backing them up.

*sigh* I already did this so many times. I even made an entire thread about it in the past. But fine, I'll make a brief and to the point list.


Before I can make my list, I have to explain a bit about writing first. A good and classic story has 5 points. The 5 points are these: 1. exposition, 2. conflict. 3. turning point, 4. climax, 5. resolution

To put it bluntly: The exposition is when you introduce the world and characters. The conflict is when something happens that initiates the protagonist's journey. The turning point is when the story takes a new direction. The climax is the final confrontation between the protagonist and the antagonist. The resolution is when everything gets wrapped up and gets closure.

Knowing that, lets look at what ME3 specifically did wrong:

1. Introducing another turning point after the climax. The battle for earth started the climax and it ended with the confrontation with TIM. After that, the story only needed a resolution. But no, wait, BioWare thought it was genius to add another plottwist, introducing the Catalyst! This is bad writing unless you have a damn good reason for breaking the story-structure and introducing a new plot point after the climax.

2. Introducing new characters after the climax. You just don't do that. Everything should already be open on the table when the climax starts. You know what the stakes are, you know what you have to do, the antagonist knows what he's going to do, and now you're going to do it. It's the final clash and now everything that has been build up t this point will get resolved. Any professional writer would advice highly against introducing new characters at this point, let alone introducing new character AFTER this point.

3. The Catalyst is a Deus Ex Machina. Okay, so not only do we get a sudden new plot twist after the climax, not only are we introduced to a completely new character at the end, he literally acts like a Deus Ex Machina! He explains us everything that the story of ME3 so far left unexplained, then out of the blue does he offer us 3 choices, of which 2 of those 3 choices come completely out of the blue! The Destroy option makes sense, it's something the entire ME3 story has been building up to from the beginning. It's the goal of the protagonist, it's what we are expected to do. But Control and Synthesis make no sense and completely come out of the blue. The entire story we have been told that we can't control the Reapers, now all of the sudden we can? DAFUQ? And Synthesis... I don't even have words for Synthesis. It supposedly the "perfect solution", but it really comes falling out of the sky completely out of the blue, a true Deus Ex Machina. I mean sure, we had Saren who also wished to merge organics and synthetics and the reapers themselves are basically synthesised organics too, but a magical button that magically turns the entire galaxy into cyborgs? That's just a total Deus Ex Machina.

4. The Crucible. The ultimate McGuffin. It's supposedly the solution against the reapers. Okay, not only is it bad writing to introduce the solution to the antagonist early in the story (you usually do that during the turning point), it also came completely out of the blue! Where is the foreshadowing of the Crucible?
Introducing the solution to your antagonist early in the story and not giving us any foreshadowing of this solution in the previous games, that's just bad writing, most professional writers will tell you that. Not to mention that introducing a McGuffin as a solution is incredibly cheap. THe fact that we CONVENIENTLY find this McGuffin at EXACTLY the right moment at EXACTLY the right place... I would almost say that this qualifies as another Deus Ex Machina.


I could go on like this, but I wanted to keep this short. So I'll give you these 4 points to ponder about.

In other words. You're using the ending as evidence that the writing was bad.

class act.

EDIT: Oh and for the record, you might want to read that little link Maximized Action gave you. I am. Plenty of your points are taken straight from that, and as far as I am concerned, not even a drunken writer, especially one in the professional world could intentionally, and unironically make these mistakes. It's like if Picasso wanted to whitewash a fence, if Van Gogh became a house painter, or Albert Einstein suddenly started having problems with basic addition.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 10 août 2012 - 12:30 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Before I can make my list, I have to explain a bit about writing first. A good and classic story has 5 points. The 5 points are these: 1. exposition, 2. conflict. 3. turning point, 4. climax, 5. resolution

To put it bluntly: The exposition is when you introduce the world and characters. The conflict is when something happens that initiates the protagonist's journey. The turning point is when the story takes a new direction. The climax is the final confrontation between the protagonist and the antagonist. The resolution is when everything gets wrapped up and gets closure.

Knowing that, lets look at what ME3 specifically did wrong:

1. Introducing another turning point after the climax. The battle for earth started the climax and it ended with the confrontation with TIM. After that, the story only needed a resolution. But no, wait, BioWare thought it was genius to add another plottwist, introducing the Catalyst! This is bad writing unless you have a damn good reason for breaking the story-structure and introducing a new plot point after the climax.

2. Introducing new characters after the climax. You just don't do that. Everything should already be open on the table when the climax starts. You know what the stakes are, you know what you have to do, the antagonist knows what he's going to do, and now you're going to do it. It's the final clash and now everything that has been build up t this point will get resolved. Any professional writer would advice highly against introducing new characters at this point, let alone introducing new character AFTER this point.

3. The Catalyst is a Deus Ex Machina. Okay, so not only do we get a sudden new plot twist after the climax, not only are we introduced to a completely new character at the end, he literally acts like a Deus Ex Machina! He explains us everything that the story of ME3 so far left unexplained, then out of the blue does he offer us 3 choices, of which 2 of those 3 choices come completely out of the blue! The Destroy option makes sense, it's something the entire ME3 story has been building up to from the beginning. It's the goal of the protagonist, it's what we are expected to do. But Control and Synthesis make no sense and completely come out of the blue. The entire story we have been told that we can't control the Reapers, now all of the sudden we can? DAFUQ? And Synthesis... I don't even have words for Synthesis. It supposedly the "perfect solution", but it really comes falling out of the sky completely out of the blue, a true Deus Ex Machina. I mean sure, we had Saren who also wished to merge organics and synthetics and the reapers themselves are basically synthesised organics too, but a magical button that magically turns the entire galaxy into cyborgs? That's just a total Deus Ex Machina.

4. The Crucible. The ultimate McGuffin. It's supposedly the solution against the reapers. Okay, not only is it bad writing to introduce the solution to the antagonist early in the story (you usually do that during the turning point), it also came completely out of the blue! Where is the foreshadowing of the Crucible?
Introducing the solution to your antagonist early in the story and not giving us any foreshadowing of this solution in the previous games, that's just bad writing, most professional writers will tell you that. Not to mention that introducing a McGuffin as a solution is incredibly cheap. THe fact that we CONVENIENTLY find this McGuffin at EXACTLY the right moment at EXACTLY the right place... I would almost say that this qualifies as another Deus Ex Machina.


I could go on like this, but I wanted to keep this short. So I'll give you these 4 points to ponder about.

In other words. You're using the ending as evidence that the writing was bad.

class act.

So the Crucible introduction is part of the ending now?


Like I said, these are merely the 4 most pressing issues with ME3. There are plenty more, but I do not feel like writing whole essays on this over and over again. But to name a few:

The way how Cerberus is handeled in ME3 is bad writing.

The way how TIM is handeled in ME3 is bad writing.

The way the rachni-queen is handeled in ME3 when you're a Renegade (since ME1) is bad writing.

The way the geth are handled in ME3 is bad writing.

The fact that the ending of ME3 makes the plot of ME1 redundant is bad writing.

The politics in ME3 are badly written, especially the Council.

The drama with the vent kid is cheap and bad writing, the nightmares even more so.


I could go into depth and explain any of these above points, but I already did so plenty of times on the BSN. Use the search function and look it up, because I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.


But yes, we can't deny that the ending is indeed the worst part of ME3's writing, but it already went wrong with the introduction of the Crucible.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 10 août 2012 - 12:29 .

[Ravereth]

 Hello guys, I'm back after a short (2-weaks long) break from BSN ... did i miss any new leads, evidence or mindblowing ideas? 

Modifié par Ravereth, 10 août 2012 - 12:36 .

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So the Crucible introduction is part of the ending now?


Like I said, these are merely the 4 most pressing issues with ME3. There are plenty more, but I do not feel like writing whole essays on this over and over again. But to name a few:

The way how Cerberus is handeled in ME3 is bad writing.

The way how TIM is handeled in ME3 is bad writing.

The way the rachni-queen is handeled in ME3 when you're a Renegade (since ME1) is bad writing.

The way the geth are handled in ME3 is bad writing.

The fact that the ending of ME3 makes the plot of ME1 redundant is bad writing.

The politics in ME3 are badly written, especially the Council.

The drama with the vent kid is cheap and bad writing, the nightmares even more so.


I could go into depth and explain any of these above points, but I already did so plenty of times on the BSN. Use the search function and look it up, because I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.


But yes, we can't deny that the ending is indeed the worst part of ME3's writing, but it already went wrong with the introduction of the Crucible.

The revelation of what the Crucible is is part of the ending. If you've been paying attention (which I doubt) you'll have noticed, plenty of us, thinking that the Crucible is a bit disturbingly convenient think it's a wild goose chase at best, and a trap at worst.

How. You might not like it, but how is the way Cerberus handled bad writing?

Once again, how?

Even Renegades can release the Rachni queen. We've also given statements previously about how there originally was a different mission planned that was cut due to TIME CONSTRAINTS, not poor writing. When it comes to the point that quality suffers, or you remove a story element that is non-critical, in the professional world, they'll remove the story element first, since it's cheaper and more cost-effective.

How.

Hence why, considering at least three of the writers, as well as the project manager worked on ME1, and all of the writers are familiar with the games, and even a few of them are huge fanboys and girls, this makes no sense. If we noticed such a thing, surely they would.

How. Are you a politician? Can you state beyond a shadow of a doubt how people would react when faced with literal extinction?

Yes, it's forced and out of place, even out of character, which is part of why we find it so weird. It has a dreamlike quality to it that we question.

HH, what you are failing to understand is two things. We say that the weird things are too weird and illogical in and of themselves to simply write off as "bad writing" or even "drunk writers" simply because such explanations don't make sense, especially when counterexamples are staring you in the face.

The other thing is the fact there is a very large chasm between what bad writing is, and what you simply don't like.

Newsflash, your opinion is not the end-all-be-all.

[Arian Dynas]

Ravereth wrote...

 Hello guys, I'm back after a short (2-weaks long) break from BSN ... did i miss any new leads, evidence or mindblowing ideas? 

Ohai Ravereth. Yoo arr lewking especially beooytiful an sexeh todaye hah?

YOU ARE TEARING ME APART VACATION FROM BSN! /Wiseau

[estebanus]

Damn you, Freddy! Banshee was on the same damn page and you drove me away! DAMN YOU!!!

All right, now that I got that outta my system, is there anything new?

[Arian Dynas]

Also, something occured to me, which could be either coincidence, or Bioware being indescribably meta.

Reading the article that Maximized action posted, and a comment the writer made, made me realize, the Catalyst is a LITERAL Deus Ex Machina. A literal "God from the Machine."

Could this perhaps be Bioware saying "Hey, yeah you know this guy? Probably shouldn't be listening to him."

Or I'm sleep deprived, one or the other.

[CoolioThane]

But that's all your opinion mr. Hanar

You've shown yourself once again to be an ignorant jerk just like the first time you showed your face in the IT thread. Perhaps now people will not be so against my anger towards nobheads like yourself.

Modifié par CoolioThane, 10 août 2012 - 12:51 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

First off, don't call me Mister. My middle name is not period, nor is my last name T.

Your attempt at mocking does not become you, and merely inspires pity that you are reduced to using playground insults. If you're going to attempt to mock me, go for the good stuff. Merely indicating I am a liar is ameturish at best. Calling me prideful and arrogant, pshht, I already am aware of many of my character flaws, thank you oh so very much. You aren't telling me anything I don't know.

At least you know your flaws. That's good.

I know for a fact I am not perfect, in fact, unlike yourself, I have little issue admitting when I am wrong, and know it. I am capable of an apology, for one.

It's easy to say you have little issue admitting when you're wrong, but it is harder actually do it. I have yet to see you ever admitting any of your mistakes. I've seen you posting plenty of times, here and i other places. You come of as someone who thinks he's always right, yet insist that he is capable of admitting when it's wrong. Right...

But, if you want my credentials, fine.

I don't care about your credentials, that's my entire issue in the first place. Bragging about credentials on the internet is cheap, low and pityful. Not only because everyone could make sh*t up and pretend he's someone else on the internet, but also because it's completely meaningless. Arguments from authority are logical fallacies you know.

I will happily admit when I am faced with a true expert, being a Jack-of-all trades myself, and will step aside. You however, do not qualify for a position.

I'm sorry I don't qualify for your position Mr. Dynas. I'm sure it is a great honor to quality for your position.

No seriously, f*** off. You don't know my credentials and nor should you care. I don't give a damn about your "position" you arrogant person.

What you call "videogame writing" I call hack writing. There is no difference on what to write between mediums. Merely what method to write it in. If it's a movie or a videogame, it's a script. If you want to stick it between two covers, you write it as a novella. Either way, a story can have the same depth no matter it's medium, and I am gravely insulted by this notion that some mediums apparently are superior to others.

I never talked about "video-game writing", I said I followed a class about writing for video-games, since you know, I study game-design & development, so it makes sense that when I learn about writing, I do so for the purpose to write for video-games. Big difference from "video-game writing", whatever that's supposed to be.

Writing for video-games is both the same and both very different than writing for other mediums. Every medium has its pro's and cons and every medium allows you to do specific things as a writer that other mediums cannot allow you to do.

For example, video-games are interactive. The user interacts with the product. That fact only already makes writing for a video-game different than writing for a screenplay.

I could go on and on about this, but I honestly do not find it worth my time explaining every single detail about writing for video-games to you.

Also, one class. That's cute. Try an entire course, with studies in your off time, just because it interests you, then see what you recall then.

When I said class I meant a course. The English language confuses me sometimes. I thought class and course were the same thing. What I meant is that I spend 6 months studying writing for video-games as part of my game-design & development education.

If your primate brain was incapable of listening to me the first time, I won't waste yet more of my time attempting to explain it to you.

Your first explanation did not suffice, it was based on a strawman so you failed. So try again or ****** off with your petty insults.

All of which is, as I said, entirely subjective. You have no example you can hold up and have everyone unilaterally agree "Yes, this was bad writing." yet your premise entirely bases itself on such an assumption.

I believe I just did in another post.

Funny. I don't see a Pulitzer medal with your name on it. What are these "rookie mistakes"? Please do, enlighten me oh wise and omniscient being of pure wisdom.

Nice ad hominem there based on an argument from authority. You fail.

And I just did enlighten you in a precious post. You waved it off as "oh it's about the ending, class act, blablabla".

Then I can look forward to anything that you write lacking entirely in interpretive value.

In short, I have had quite enough of your sophistry MISTER Heretic.

Don't worry, I do not plan on becoming a writer for the video-game industry. I'm quite fine with my job an an environment designer for the video-game industry. But even if I had to write a story for a video-game, I'm sure I'd do a better job than you.


And yeah, the feeling is mutual Mr. Dynas. So lets just stop this.

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, something occured to me, which could be either coincidence, or Bioware being indescribably meta.

Reading the article that Maximized action posted, and a comment the writer made, made me realize, the Catalyst is a LITERAL Deus Ex Machina. A literal "God from the Machine."

Could this perhaps be Bioware saying "Hey, yeah you know this guy? Probably shouldn't be listening to him."

Or I'm sleep deprived, one or the other.

A literal Deus Ex Machina is not better than a metaphorical Deus Ex Machina, in fact I think it's even worse (but that's just my humble opinion). A Deus Ex machina still is bad writing, whether it's literal or not.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


*sigh* I already did this so many times. I even made an entire thread about it in the past. But fine, I'll make a brief and to the point list.


Before I can make my list, I have to explain a bit about writing first. A good and classic story has 5 points. The 5 points are these: 1. exposition, 2. conflict. 3. turning point, 4. climax, 5. resolution

To put it bluntly: The exposition is when you introduce the world and characters. The conflict is when something happens that initiates the protagonist's journey. The turning point is when the story takes a new direction. The climax is the final confrontation between the protagonist and the antagonist. The resolution is when everything gets wrapped up and gets closure.

Knowing that, lets look at what ME3 specifically did wrong:

1. Introducing another turning point after the climax. The battle for earth started the climax and it ended with the confrontation with TIM. After that, the story only needed a resolution. But no, wait, BioWare thought it was genius to add another plottwist, introducing the Catalyst! This is bad writing unless you have a damn good reason for breaking the story-structure and introducing a new plot point after the climax.

2. Introducing new characters after the climax. You just don't do that. Everything should already be open on the table when the climax starts. You know what the stakes are, you know what you have to do, the antagonist knows what he's going to do, and now you're going to do it. It's the final clash and now everything that has been build up t this point will get resolved. Any professional writer would advice highly against introducing new characters at this point, let alone introducing new character AFTER this point.

3. The Catalyst is a Deus Ex Machina. Okay, so not only do we get a sudden new plot twist after the climax, not only are we introduced to a completely new character at the end, he literally acts like a Deus Ex Machina! He explains us everything that the story of ME3 so far left unexplained, then out of the blue does he offer us 3 choices, of which 2 of those 3 choices come completely out of the blue! The Destroy option makes sense, it's something the entire ME3 story has been building up to from the beginning. It's the goal of the protagonist, it's what we are expected to do. But Control and Synthesis make no sense and completely come out of the blue. The entire story we have been told that we can't control the Reapers, now all of the sudden we can? DAFUQ? And Synthesis... I don't even have words for Synthesis. It supposedly the "perfect solution", but it really comes falling out of the sky completely out of the blue, a true Deus Ex Machina. I mean sure, we had Saren who also wished to merge organics and synthetics and the reapers themselves are basically synthesised organics too, but a magical button that magically turns the entire galaxy into cyborgs? That's just a total Deus Ex Machina.

4. The Crucible. The ultimate McGuffin. It's supposedly the solution against the reapers. Okay, not only is it bad writing to introduce the solution to the antagonist early in the story (you usually do that during the turning point), it also came completely out of the blue! Where is the foreshadowing of the Crucible?
Introducing the solution to your antagonist early in the story and not giving us any foreshadowing of this solution in the previous games, that's just bad writing, most professional writers will tell you that. Not to mention that introducing a McGuffin as a solution is incredibly cheap. THe fact that we CONVENIENTLY find this McGuffin at EXACTLY the right moment at EXACTLY the right place... I would almost say that this qualifies as another Deus Ex Machina.


I could go on like this, but I wanted to keep this short. So I'll give you these 4 points to ponder about.

Ah yes I remember these, but funny how 3 of those 4 points are all brought up in the ending, the very thing which this Theory is about explaining. Under this theory the 3 first points are non existent, shortly said it is exactly as Atrian sya that you are calling them bad writer because of the ending.

The final point about the Crucible is disputeable. As has been discussed a hundred times in this thread allready, the Crucible itself could easily be part of the entire trap we discuss in here making it point of dispute and not something idd write of as bad writing just yet.

Also I wouldnt say it is not foreshadowed at all. Super weapons have been developed against the Reapers before, such as the cannon which took out the Derelict Reaper and I actually had a theory taht the Crucible and that cannon could be the same or near the same weapon, simply by the Crucible turning the Citadel relay into a giant Mass Accelerator Cannon, but that is all speculation.

Point is the Crucible is dosent have to be waht we think it is and thus still a point in contention. I can agree it is a bad plot device in the litteral sense, but considering this thread is dedicated to exploring the possibilities beyond the litteral sense I cant get completely behind it.

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And yeah, the feeling is mutual Mr. Dynas. So lets just stop this.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 10 août 2012 - 12:59 .