majormajormmajor wrote...
themaltaproject wrote...
If we take that the OP is asking: do the people on these forums that ****ed and complain about everything BW puts out deserve an ME4? Absolutely. I would say ban them from the forums.
The solution to dissenting opinions is to ban them. I like how you BSN martinets think.
The Grey Nayr wrote...
Cause frankly, all the abuse they've suffered the past year has proven now much you guys don't deserve another Mass Effect.
You'd just whine and complain like rotten spoiled babies about every little thing you don't like. Everything you don't understand, everything you don't think is "true to ME's style." and probably the fact that a different team is doing it(Bioware Montreal.)
In a similar way people measure "goodness" (quality) of screenwriting or writing in general.Kiriruro wrote...
And how do you measure this "goodness"?
Modifié par klarabella, 28 novembre 2012 - 04:04 .
Modifié par Brownfinger, 29 novembre 2012 - 09:31 .
Nah, not that simple. What is "good storytelling" anyway? What are "interesting characters"?Kiriruro wrote...
So it is about complexity, good storytelling, interesting characters and overall impact on the reader, right?
Modifié par klarabella, 29 novembre 2012 - 10:23 .
The Grey Nayr wrote...
Dot.Shadow wrote...
Last I checked Bioware claimed to want feedback from their customers.
There's critique and there's abuse. I've yet to see any critique.
You are looking at it from a wrong angle. There is no such things as "screwing the lore" as long as the author is the one with a crowbar. In the end, what author says IS the lore, right?klarabella wrote...
Nah, not that simple. What is "good storytelling" anyway? What are "interesting characters"?Kiriruro wrote...
So it is about complexity, good storytelling, interesting characters and overall impact on the reader, right?
It's a game (or three games) so you don't want more complexity in your story than you can handle within the confines of your medium. What you need for games like ME is a simple, solid story that you can easily expand on. Simple is not bad, especially when you've promised to keep track of decisions and show the consequences of them.
It's also about consistency. You don't **** all over your own lore unless you have a really good explanation for doing so. (Not if you are technically developing something perceived as an RPG.)
It's also about structure (knowing what you want to tell, when you want to tell it and how you want to tell it). They violated this pretty hard, too. They had no clue where their story was going from ME1 on. ME2 is a big waste of time story-wise. ME3 is trying to do ME2's job next to its own while trying to introduce the franchise to a new audience and come off as intelligent in the end.
People have very different opinions on what makes characters interesting, so you might want to go for a good mix. Interesting doesn't necessarily mean popular. A well-written character has an agenda of their own (fawning over the protagonist is not an agenda!), is consistent and develops gradually and naturally. I think Bioware violated this, too, and most of their characters are barely more than archetypes and the roles assigned to them.
So no, not exactly good. Somewhat entertaining if you can look past the flaws. Of course, fairly unique as there aren't too many RPG-like sci-fi games.
Kiriruro wrote...
You are looking at it from a wrong angle. There is no such things as "screwing the lore" as long as the author is the one with a crowbar. In the end, what author says IS the lore, right?
And yes, a lot of novels that get published in journals, go through a lot of modifying before being published as a book - it is just the nature of things, authors are not gods, you know, they can't predict every turn, they will be going to take.
Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 29 novembre 2012 - 03:16 .
Modifié par darkway1, 29 novembre 2012 - 03:28 .
Guest_Rubios_*
Modifié par Rubios, 29 novembre 2012 - 06:07 .
Retour en haut
