298 réponses à ce sujet

[Dysjong]

Just a question but has anyone played and completede FF9 before? If people think that the catalyst is a sad thing, try and see FF9. While it doesn't feature choices, the last part of that game.... It was confusing.

[Outsider edge]

JamesFaith wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...
I personally can't remember a movie franchise or game franchise that survived two dissapointing entries.

Tombraider?

Hmm good one. Although Tombraider is abit of a strange breed those games always seem too sell. Even Angel of Darkness which is generally regarded as one of the poorest entries into that franchise sold over 2 million copies.

[Outsider edge]

Dysjong wrote...

Just a question but has anyone played and completede FF9 before? If people think that the catalyst is a sad thing, try and see FF9. While it doesn't feature choices, the last part of that game.... It was confusing.

Never played it but Final Fantasy is a JRPG. Those games usually have characters and stories that are abit....out there.

[Dr_Extrem]

Outsider edge wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...
I personally can't remember a movie franchise or game franchise that survived two dissapointing entries.

Tombraider?

Hmm good one. Although Tombraider is abit of a strange breed those games always seem too sell. Even Angel of Darkness which is generally regarded as one of the poorest entries into that franchise sold over 2 million copies.

every tomp raider game has exactly two reasons to buy it.

[Dysjong]

Outsider edge wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Just a question but has anyone played and completede FF9 before? If people think that the catalyst is a sad thing, try and see FF9. While it doesn't feature choices, the last part of that game.... It was confusing.

Never played it but Final Fantasy is a JRPG. Those games usually have characters and stories that are abit....out there.

Normally yes but regarding FF9, it had something simillar to ME3... Im not talking about the characters but the story itself and what happende all the way to the last encounter with the main bad guy... And suddenly...wth just happens.

[X086573]

Just a quick request:

Will the OP please edit the title of the thread to something like:
"Does Bioware have control over the quality of their writing?"

you can copy and paste it if you want...

Modifié par X086573, 12 janvier 2013 - 01:17 .

[LTKerr]

Dysjong wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Just a question but has anyone played and completede FF9 before? If people think that the catalyst is a sad thing, try and see FF9. While it doesn't feature choices, the last part of that game.... It was confusing.

Never played it but Final Fantasy is a JRPG. Those games usually have characters and stories that are abit....out there.

Normally yes but regarding FF9, it had something simillar to ME3... Im not talking about the characters but the story itself and what happende all the way to the last encounter with the main bad guy... And suddenly...wth just happens.

You mean the final boss who comes from nowhere and I'm still trying to understand what or who the hell is it? I played it 10 years ago or so but I remember I though that was a random huge boss because the game needed a final boss for...for... I don't know. That boss just appeared xD

[ZLurps]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...
I personally can't remember a movie franchise or game franchise that survived two dissapointing entries.

Tombraider?

Hmm good one. Although Tombraider is abit of a strange breed those games always seem too sell. Even Angel of Darkness which is generally regarded as one of the poorest entries into that franchise sold over 2 million copies.

every tomp raider game has exactly two reasons to buy it.

First Tomb Raider games were great. Mix of puzzles, discovery and shooting with really lot of possibilites for interacting with the environment, jumping, climbing, swimming, diving, pulling, pushing to solve the puzzles. They were also first games to use features of 3D cards. I still remember stopping to just look water ripple effect rendered by Voodoo 2 card.

Even Tomb Raider games weren't everyone's cup of tea they were really popular, not solely because of marketing, but because they were actually really good games.

Modifié par ZLurps, 12 janvier 2013 - 01:28 .

[Dysjong]

LTkerr -
Yeah, that big guy. Maybe that is the reason i have no problem with the catalyst...

[Dr_Extrem]

ZLurps wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...
I personally can't remember a movie franchise or game franchise that survived two dissapointing entries.

Tombraider?

Hmm good one. Although Tombraider is abit of a strange breed those games always seem too sell. Even Angel of Darkness which is generally regarded as one of the poorest entries into that franchise sold over 2 million copies.

every tomp raider game has exactly two reasons to buy it.

First Tomb Raider games were great. Mix of puzzles, discovery and shooting with really lot of possibilites for interacting with the environment, jumping, climbing, swimming, diving, pulling, pushing to solve the puzzles. They were also first games to use features of 3D cards. I still remember stopping to just look water ripple effect rendered by Voodoo 2 card.

Even Tomb Raider games weren't everyone's cup of tea they were really popular, not solely because of marketing, but because they were actually really good games.

i can remember those times ... i played half life though - with my voodoo-1 card with cross-cable *muahahahaha*

the old games had good puzzles and were very versitile. the new games are reduced to the two obvious reasons.

[LTKerr]

Dysjong wrote...

LTkerr -
Yeah, that big guy. Maybe that is the reason i have no problem with the catalyst...

The main difference is that FF9 final boss doesn't interfere with the game plot, it's nonsensical per se because you don't know who or what it is but it doesn't go against the game itself, it doesn't change any stablished rule about Gaia or FF9 lore. FF9 story, goals and characters are the same whether the final boss appears or not. You could say it's just a boss for the sake of having a final boss, just another random battle with a huge monster.

Starchild instead... well, it comes from nowhere, yes, but it goes against all Mass Effect goals and lore. Its mere existance destroys the whole franchise because it destroys both hero and enemy characters. Just until its appearance the Reapers were an unbeatable, fearsome and mysterous enemy the hero must kill, Shepard was the hero destined to kill them and to save the galaxy, and the main goal is.. well, save the galaxy by killing the Reapers and unite all races to do so. Then Starchild appears. In the last 10 minutes of the franchise (100 hours more or less) the Reapers are no longer those fearsome enemies and now they are just simple tools -not the main enemy anymore-, Shepard is no longer the hero but just another tool too, and the main goal is no longer "save the galaxy" but an "organics vs synthetics" issue that has been solved few hours before. THIS is awful writting, not just a random character appearing from nowhere.

Modifié par LTKerr, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:04 .

[Lazengan]

probably view themselves as superior writers

too arrogant and egoistic to have their work edited

[Dysjong]

LTkerr -

If you are refering to the geth/quarian that could be solved peacefully, then no. While the player could argue that he/she proved the catalyst wrong by showing the end result, the catalyst might just counter argue that it's inevitable and sooner or later, that peace will disappear, leading to conflict. It had milions of years to see the rise and fall of different races, cultures and synthetics.

While the reapers is the tool for the catalyst, only Shepard knows that. To the rest of the galaxy the reapers are the enemy.

But i get what you mean about the differences between the games, i just never had that problem with the catalyst popping out of nowhere, telling me the forbidden truth (that is how i see it) and asks me to take action.

[Dr_Extrem]

Dysjong wrote...

LTkerr -

If you are refering to the geth/quarian that could be solved peacefully, then no. While the player could argue that he/she proved the catalyst wrong by showing the end result, the catalyst might just counter argue that it's inevitable and sooner or later, that peace will disappear, leading to conflict. It had milions of years to see the rise and fall of different races, cultures and synthetics.

While the reapers is the tool for the catalyst, only Shepard knows that. To the rest of the galaxy the reapers are the enemy.

But i get what you mean about the differences between the games, i just never had that problem with the catalyst popping out of nowhere, telling me the forbidden truth (that is how i see it) and asks me to take action.

the catalyst is a double plot twist.

fist, the catalyst was introduced as some kind of "device" or part of the crucible. then, the catalyst is transformed into the citadel (wich makes sense, since it is the heart of the network, that spans our galaxy). transforming it into the true enemy, is too much.
there is a reason why quirky, last minute plot twists backfire in 99% of the time. if not done properly, they look like cheap shifts and are a sign of bad writing and plot planning. the reader/player feels cheated and hoaxed - it is natural.

if you write a crime story, you have to give the reader all the evidences, that lead to the last suspects. normally, one by one, is releaved and the last one is the bad guy. in analogy, mass effects last suspect, is the guy who was never a suspect and is only convicted by a last minute evidence.

[Dysjong]

Dr_extreme

I have no idea about how to write a story, but i know that mass effect isnt a crime story. Again i can stil accept that the catalyst came put of nowhere. It reminds me of what the joker said, something about the greatest joke is the one right in front of you. We can agree on that no one would have thought about the citadel is the catalyst pre ME3. As you pointed out, the citadel is the heart of the relays. Why no one in this cycle have stumble on it...my guess would be the keepers. While the protheans did alter the keepers to not respond to that signal, that's it. The keepers stil remaine a mystery and did continue with keeping the citadel functionable.

Im only guessing, im not qualifyable to call myself an expert in storytelling.

[Dr_Extrem]

Dysjong wrote...

Dr_extreme

I have no idea about how to write a story, but i know that mass effect isnt a crime story. Again i can stil accept that the catalyst came put of nowhere. It reminds me of what the joker said, something about the greatest joke is the one right in front of you. We can agree on that no one would have thought about the citadel is the catalyst pre ME3. As you pointed out, the citadel is the heart of the relays. Why no one in this cycle have stumble on it...my guess would be the keepers. While the protheans did alter the keepers to not respond to that signal, that's it. The keepers stil remaine a mystery and did continue with keeping the citadel functionable.

Im only guessing, im not qualifyable to call myself an expert in storytelling.

the "crime story" was meant to act as an analogy. cheesy crime stories end with a big reveal. most of the time it is a last minute evidence, nobody thought of and the culprit is suddenly a character, nobody had "on the radar".

mass effect handles its ending quite similar. the player thinks, that the main conflict is between the galaxy and the reapers. then, the reapers are transformed into the victims and the main plots becomes what was percepted as a side-plot. it screems out: "we (the writers) fooled you for 3 games!"


there are simple rules how not to write an ending. mass effect 3 violates most of them.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:16 .

[Rasofe]

Well, unfortunately people WANTED an explanation for why the Reapers did what they did. Whereas some would say that an evil you cannot understand is the most menacing.
The Reapers weren't turned into "victims", although in a sense they always were - like gigantic undead created from the bodies of whole populations. But their motives for continuing the cycle were unknown. Now, we know their motives. And that understanding means that the Reapers are no longer as alien.
In short, on that point they gave us something people wanted, but what they didn't really need.
As for the greatest problem, it's the change of what is the "central theme". There, they managed to pull one of the sickest plot twists, because truth be told, it was foreshadowed. For most of the game, the decisions Shepard makes are on the topic of how Humanity must act in the Galaxy - alone, ruthless, brutal, like Cerberus, or cooperative, pragmatic and compassionate like the Alliance? But at the same time, there is always a red thread of a Synthetic vs Organic conflict. While most of us probably saw this as a side-plot more than anything, one of the many science-fiction sides along with the Genophage and Galactic Crime, we never expected it to be the main fulcrum of the story, and therefore didn't believe it would be the core of the ending.
It's one of the only criticisms I have for the post-EC endings left, though. If they really want to make that the central conflict of Mass Effect, that's fine, but it wasn't really a good choice.

[ZLurps]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

every tomp raider game has exactly two reasons to buy it.

First Tomb Raider games were great. Mix of puzzles, discovery and shooting with really lot of possibilites for interacting with the environment, jumping, climbing, swimming, diving, pulling, pushing to solve the puzzles. They were also first games to use features of 3D cards. I still remember stopping to just look water ripple effect rendered by Voodoo 2 card.

Even Tomb Raider games weren't everyone's cup of tea they were really popular, not solely because of marketing, but because they were actually really good games.

i can remember those times ... i played half life though - with my voodoo-1 card with cross-cable *muahahahaha*

the old games had good puzzles and were very versitile. the new games are reduced to the two obvious reasons.

Still, Lara's cup size alone wouldn't sell many copies if brand were established just on that and first Tomb Raider games weren't been the great games they were. Marketing can do a lot, but also cause problems if product doesn't meet customer expectations. Just think of Daikatana, we got the first and last in the same package.

But to get back on topic. If I think of classics like, Mass Effect 1, Deus Ex, Battlezone, Homeworld and Tomb Raider, I can imagine developers creating games that they themself wanted to play. When I think of ME3 and writers, were they really creating a game that they them self would enjoy or were they creating an experience that "those other people" would enjoy.

Modifié par ZLurps, 12 janvier 2013 - 04:00 .

[Dysjong]

LTkerr -

I wouldn't call the reapers victims, Sovereign proved that (for me atleast)

Rasofe -

I gotta agree with you on that.

[SpamBot2000]

No.

[silverexile17s]

Indy_S wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

The most that can be said is that the Crucible's existance doesn't void the lore by existing.
However, if you ask me, the concept and general introduction of it into the plot felt rushed and awkward.
I mean, finding in right on your friggin doorstep RIGHT as the Reapers attack?
I don't think BioWare paced that right. If it had been hinted at in ME2, or in a DLC before ME3, then the Crucible wouldn't feel like such an awkward plot moment.
I know my crituqe isn't law, but in my opinion, as is, the way they did it, the whole "Reaper-killing doomsday weapon" suddenly coming out of nowhere is clumsy, and not the kind of stumble I'd expected in the plot development this late in the game.

I wonder if anybody told them that during development. It might have provided a bit of relief to some of the complaints we've seen on BSN.

I agree. It would have given a good mesure of relief to the complaints.
As is, it looks to me that the Crucible was something Drew originally created for the Dark Energy plot, as it's ment to link up with the Dark Energy manipulating Citadel, and uses the Dark Energy utilizing Mass Relays to fire, and itself uses components that minipulate Dark Energy. Meaning that the Crucible was likely a fixed plot element since the very beginning. 
The problem was it's introduction. I truly think that if the Crucible had been intorduced into the plot back in ME2, then it wouldn't have felt like the "sudden plot-bomb, bordering on feeling like an outright asspull" that it was in ME3, when it actually was a planed plotpoint since the writing of the main plot back with ME1.

[silverexile17s]

Ninja Stan wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Hang on, I thought the party line was that Bioware works primarily to realise their artistic vision? Maybe I've just read Dr Muzyka's blog post wrong.

The term has often been used as an internet meme out of context. Some folks believe that the term was used to dismiss any and all negative criticism about the game. This is patently untrue. Ray used the term to support the work of the dev team of his own company in the wake of a lot of nastiness and extreme negativity in the forums and elsewhere.

In any, case it's a pretty rare opinion since the vast majority of thief gaming press in support of Bioware and the ME3 endings very emphatically denies this, insisting that incorporating fan feedback would set a bad precedent and spell the end of the medium (conveniently ignoring the fact that Bioware has always done just that as far back as BG - I wonder if any of them complained about Imoen not dying in Spellhold? Or about her presence in the games in the first place - she was added since play testers didn't like the lack of good-aligned thieves)

Incorporating fan feedback directly? Yes, it would set a bad precedent. Can you imagine doing your job once you showed your potential clients that you would take their feedback and implement it into the product? You'd get a jillion people demanding you do the same for them. In ME3's case, every pet theory, every plot that someone felt needed resolution, every favourite character that needed "just one more scene," every possible ending, would be demanded? And once you show that one person's feedback is directly incorporated, that turns into "BioWare will incorporate my idea."

And once that happens, you get, well, pretty much the same backlash the BSN got with the endings. Total chaos from people who are hurt, disappointed that their expectations weren't met, accusations of BioWare lying to their fanbase, BioWare shamed and insulted for not listening, devs being called lazy and incompetent, calls for the firing of the devs, and you know the rest.

What BioWare has done in the past, from what I've seen, is to take some good ideas directly but also some of the more interesting ideas (because hey, why not?), talk about them, come up with other ideas that may be inspired by them or related to them, talk about them, and then coming up with a few game ideas based on that. And not even necessarily for inclusion in the very next game. Maybe it's an idea for two games down the line, or a "holy crap, if only we could do this..." kind of idea.

Taking ideas and suggestions and incorporating them as-is is, in my opinion, not a very good idea for any creator.

True, it's difficult. But then again, Bethesda has been doing quite well at just that: taking all fan feedback into consideration and making it have direct impact on the game's content and what you see and do.
But again, I don't know how you work compaired to them, since your buisness poilicis and such are different.

Still, there Bethesda is.

[Mogsam_]

Dysjong wrote...

Just a question but has anyone played and completede FF9 before? If people think that the catalyst is a sad thing, try and see FF9. While it doesn't feature choices, the last part of that game.... It was confusing.

Ah Necron. The most assinine boss ever. Killed me as well the first time I played that game. Was quite annoying.

[KevShep]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Incorporating fan feedback directly? Yes, it would set a bad precedent. Can you imagine doing your job once you showed your potential clients that you would take their feedback and implement it into the product? You'd get a jillion people demanding you do the same for them. In ME3's case, every pet theory, every plot that someone felt needed resolution, every favourite character that needed "just one more scene," every possible ending, would be demanded? And once you show that one person's feedback is directly incorporated, that turns into "BioWare will incorporate my idea."

And once that happens, you get, well, pretty much the same backlash the BSN got with the endings. Total chaos from people who are hurt, disappointed that their expectations weren't met, accusations of BioWare lying to their fanbase, BioWare shamed and insulted for not listening, devs being called lazy and incompetent, calls for the firing of the devs, and you know the rest.

What BioWare has done in the past, from what I've seen, is to take some good ideas directly but also some of the more interesting ideas (because hey, why not?), talk about them, come up with other ideas that may be inspired by them or related to them, talk about them, and then coming up with a few game ideas based on that. And not even necessarily for inclusion in the very next game. Maybe it's an idea for two games down the line, or a "holy crap, if only we could do this..." kind of idea.

Taking ideas and suggestions and incorporating them as-is is, in my opinion, not a very good idea for any creator.

Again your not understanding, nether is Bioware. No one said that they..."have to"... use there ideas directly into the game.

I disagree with you on the concept of fan made art and fan made endings(and or related to the ending). If you look at all of the fan made stuff, there ideas are VERY popular with the masses. If you look at ME3's ending it was a massive fail with most people. I think that the fans have the most inspired form of ideas that should be more looked at then they are. Had a fan looked at ME before its development with the script then they would have said right then and there that it would suck.

For me and many many many others the ending left us without any emotion at all.

Your writer(s) of the ending did not make the ending with a fans insight in mind (meaning a fans perspective).
 
Example: We have told you a year and a half before release that we did not want a kill-all-reapers-button. What did we get?...we got a crucible (kill-all-reapers-button).

Your ending was SSSOOOO bad that you had to give us a EC DLC that was supposed to fill in the gaps and give us closure and instead we did NOT get closure nor did it fill in the gaps....Then...you make a Leviatan DLC to "explain" all the plot holes left by the worst end-game writing in gaming history that still existed even in the EC and ended up making even more plot holes then EVER BEFORE. Leviathans?...The first race hidden all this time?...Really?

Trying to say that its the "nature of the beast" is not justified proof to say that Bioware did all they could. They did the worst job then in any movie/game/book, and they did it in a span of 10 minutes.

Modifié par KevShep, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:29 .