324 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

i think thats the whole problem. you just dont write a trilogy "on the way" ... this will fail. you write your golden thread at the beginning of the process. this includes the beginning and the end of the story. all in between can be altered and adjusted.

the other games did not have to be a "real ending", because they were parts of a series. the last part of the series is the place for the end - not the first or second act.

the first act is about the introduction of the characters and the story - mass effect did this quite well.
the second act is about fleshing out the characters and collecting facts about the opposition - mass effect 2 was at least sucessful on the first part.
the 3rd act has the job to conclude the story and to provide a good ending. from this pov, mass effect 3 failed.


bioware made a bad habit of being inconsistant and getting away with it. in the case of mass effect 3, they just ran out of luck. (mho)


edit ... wtf is wrong with the quote function?

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 12 février 2013 - 01:13 .

[PainCakesx]

[quote]Dr_Extrem wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Well, that's certainly your opinion and you're welcome to it. But most here seem to agree that the writing and story was generally compelling up until the end of ME3 (though some didn't like the story in ME3 either).[/quote]I'd agree, and that would be my point: like it's always been, Bioware writing is mostly good except in the places it isn't. In ME3, the place it isn't happens to be the end: in ME2 there used to be much thrashing of teeth about the beginning (and having the go with Cerberus), in ME1 it could be claimed about the characters (boring/racist/codex on legs, minimal development and primarily backstory exposition).

I'd say ME3 is pretty typical for the quality of the series overall. It didn't pull off a good conclusive end for the series... but then, none of the other games even attempted such. They didn't even set up such an ending either: their flaws are simply less noticed and more visible afterwards.

[quote]
I didn't say ME3 threw those out, simply that if any future ME game did that it would be a tough sell to most markets. [/quote]Is there any reason to believe they would, if ME3 didn't?
[/quote]

i think thats the whole problem. you just dont write a trilogy "on the way" ... this will fail. you write your golden thread at the beginning of the process. this includes the beginning and the end of the story. all in between can be altered and adjusted.

the other games did not have to be a "real ending", because they were parts of a series. the last part of the series is the place for the end - not the first or second act.

the first act is about the introduction of the characters and the story - mass effect did this quite well.
the second act is about fleshing out the characters and collecting facts about the opposition - mass effect 2 was at least sucessful on the first part.
the 3rd act has the job to conclude the story and to provide a good ending. from this pov, mass effect 3 failed.


bioware made a bad habit of being inconsistant and getting away with it. in the case of mass effect 3, they just ran out of luck. (mho)[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll agree that as a trilogy, ME2 didn't fit the arc well. It was still a good game with a good story though. 

I don't really see why ME needed to be a trilogy, but that's BioWare's call. Given that's the route they wanted to go, I'll agree that ME3 generally failed as the conclusion.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 12 février 2013 - 01:07 .

[Dean_the_Young]

PainCakesx wrote...

And yes, the ending threw out the "good writing." The ending of ME1 and ME2 were satisfying. They had a feeling of victory, accomplishment. ME3's wasn't.

YMMV, but for all they had 'victory' ME1 and ME2 really just punted resolution down the road without an idea of how it would have to be tied together. ME1 can get away with it because it was the first, and allegedly they didn't know if it would even be continued so they wrote it so that the Reapers might be 'trapped in Dark Space', but ME2's resolution set up a lot of the complaints people would have for ME3. The Collectors were beaten, sure, but by focusing on a pretty minor threat (the Collectors weren't capable of targetting Earth before the invasion, let alone finishing their harvest in time) and presenting victory in such a way that very little narrative progress was made for the trilogy (ME2 ends pretty much where ME1 ended, with little progress besides introduction in key arcs), ME2 got away with ignorring a lot of things ME3 never could have.

It's not unfair to judge them by different standards, but their interaction and differerent roles should be recognized. ME1 had to end a game which might or might not get a sequel. ME2 was almost guaranteed a sequel, and could throw out as many loose ends as it wanted and leave it to ME3 to resolve them. ME3 had to resolve the trilogy, and end Shepard's story, and establish Big Consequences to the writer's satisfaction, and do a lot of other things the others never had to.

[NatP]

The really bad thing about the ending in my opinion, is, simply put, it just isn't Mass Effect. Sure, all 3 games had their flaws in the writing department, some more than others, but never before the ending did it ever become thematically different. It never stopped being MASS EFFECT.

I really don't have the writing skills to go into greater detail into what I mean but let me just say that what would satisfy me is just an end fitting of this amazing trilogy and not what we got.

HOWEVER, I know that this will probably never happen so I'll just try to enjoy the next DLC for what it is.

[PainCakesx]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

And yes, the ending threw out the "good writing." The ending of ME1 and ME2 were satisfying. They had a feeling of victory, accomplishment. ME3's wasn't.

YMMV, but for all they had 'victory' ME1 and ME2 really just punted resolution down the road without an idea of how it would have to be tied together. ME1 can get away with it because it was the first, and allegedly they didn't know if it would even be continued so they wrote it so that the Reapers might be 'trapped in Dark Space', but ME2's resolution set up a lot of the complaints people would have for ME3. The Collectors were beaten, sure, but by focusing on a pretty minor threat (the Collectors weren't capable of targetting Earth before the invasion, let alone finishing their harvest in time) and presenting victory in such a way that very little narrative progress was made for the trilogy (ME2 ends pretty much where ME1 ended, with little progress besides introduction in key arcs), ME2 got away with ignorring a lot of things ME3 never could have.

It's not unfair to judge them by different standards, but their interaction and differerent roles should be recognized. ME1 had to end a game which might or might not get a sequel. ME2 was almost guaranteed a sequel, and could throw out as many loose ends as it wanted and leave it to ME3 to resolve them. ME3 had to resolve the trilogy, and end Shepard's story, and establish Big Consequences to the writer's satisfaction, and do a lot of other things the others never had to.

I agree that ME2 didn't forward the story much, and if judged solely as the center of a trilogy, wasn't that great.

As I said in my previous post, the evolution in gameplay and its still interesting story made it work. Additionally, we didn't know that the Collectors would be a relatively inconsequential threat in ME3 - I was actually expecting to see a bit more of them.

Also, they DID rewrite ME3 during development, which would explain why a lot of the foreshadowing in ME2 went nowhere. 

I won't dispute that they should have written out the general storyline at the beginning, and hope they do so if they do another ME trilogy. 

[The RPGenius]

Chris Priestly wrote...To say "they're not giving us new endings, they aren't listening" (or whatever) is not true.

But you aren't giving us new endings, and since the ending is the single largest aspect of the game that we give give the most feedback about, you aren't listening.  I don't know whether you're forced to just keep feeding us one PR-approved line of BS you don't actually believe in after another, or if you're just honestly playing make-believe with the way human logic works, but just because you say something isn't true, that doesn't mean God's going to rearrange the way reality works to back you up.  Bioware is not listening.

[nrobbiec]

But a lot of the "feedback" is just mindless whining, in their shoes you'd ignore it too.

[PainCakesx]

nrobbiec wrote...

But a lot of the "feedback" is just mindless whining, in their shoes you'd ignore it too.

That is incredibly unfair. There has been some mindless *****ing, but there have been a lot of valid and well thought out criticisms as well. To brush off a huge portion of the fan base as just "mindless whining" is categorically unfair. 

[nrobbiec]

PainCakesx wrote...

nrobbiec wrote...

But a lot of the "feedback" is just mindless whining, in their shoes you'd ignore it too.

That is incredibly unfair. There has been some mindless *****ing, but there have been a lot of valid and well thought out criticisms as well. To brush off a huge portion of the fan base as just "mindless whining" is categorically unfair. 

Not saying there aren't constructive criticisms but if ten people are screaming at you in one ear and one person is talking normally in the other who are you going to hear?

[Dean_the_Young]

The RPGenius wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...To say "they're not giving us new endings, they aren't listening" (or whatever) is not true.

But you aren't giving us new endings, and since the ending is the single largest aspect of the game that we give give the most feedback about, you aren't listening.  I don't know whether you're forced to just keep feeding us one PR-approved line of BS you don't actually believe in after another, or if you're just honestly playing make-believe with the way human logic works, but just because you say something isn't true, that doesn't mean God's going to rearrange the way reality works to back you up.  Bioware is not listening.

Me thinks you need to re-look at what the definition of 'listening' is.

Hint: it isn't 'agree' or 'do what you hear.'

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 février 2013 - 01:46 .

[PainCakesx]

nrobbiec wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

nrobbiec wrote...

But a lot of the "feedback" is just mindless whining, in their shoes you'd ignore it too.

That is incredibly unfair. There has been some mindless *****ing, but there have been a lot of valid and well thought out criticisms as well. To brush off a huge portion of the fan base as just "mindless whining" is categorically unfair. 

Not saying there aren't constructive criticisms but if ten people are screaming at you in one ear and one person is talking normally in the other who are you going to hear?

It's not exactly hard to find well thought out criticisms of the ending. 

[Meltemph]

PainCakesx wrote...

nrobbiec wrote...

But a lot of the "feedback" is just mindless whining, in their shoes you'd ignore it too.

That is incredibly unfair. There has been some mindless *****ing, but there have been a lot of valid and well thought out criticisms as well. To brush off a huge portion of the fan base as just "mindless whining" is categorically unfair. 

Sure, but a lot of it gets drowned out by the over emotional rants that the bioware forums are famous for.  ld1449 and The RPGenius type responses are the norm.  Dispassionate arguments are like an oasis on these forums.  It seems people are either over emotional about what they like or over emotional about what they dont like.  

At least with GAFfers we/they are (mostly) smart and are (mostly) ****s. With Bioware forums it normally comes across as some crusade to fight against injustice, imo, anywho.

Modifié par Meltemph, 12 février 2013 - 01:46 .

[Argentoid]

That's nice, thanks for the answer Chris!

I hope I'll get some answers for my concerns about the existence of the Catalyst in either the upcoming DLC or some other DLC in the future. I don't want the ending to be changed anymore, I just want to fill in the gaps that's created by the lore of ME1.

There are basicly:

- How come the Catalyst didn't know about the Conduit created by the Protheans even if they used it. (ME1 lore)
- How come that the Catalyst didn't notice the sabotage against the Keepers who are controlled by the Citadel thus by the Catalyst (ME1 lore)
- Why Sovereign needed Saren to gain full access over the Citadel and open the relay if there's the Catalyst? (who's the collective intelligence of all Reapers - ME1 lore)
- Why did Harbinger considered Humanity the most capable oranic race in the Galaxy, according to our genetic diversity (ME2 lore, Harbinger's taunts)
- Why didn't the Reapers attacked the Citadel and seized control over it to shut down the relay network like they did in every other cycles before (ME1 lore and even ME3, as Javik mentions the same as Vigil mentioned that they had to fight the Reapers from planet by planet, system by system. Without the relay the extinction took quite some time for the Reapers and that's why only a few Prothean scientist survived who could then go back to the Citadel and sabotage the Keepers's signal). Even when they moved the Citadel to Earth.

This.

[sr2josh]

Chris Priestly wrote...

A couple of points:
1 - We have said that the DLC does not change the ending of the game. That would apply to changing movies involved in the ending.

2 - If you've read the twitter comments, you'd know teh DLC is being played and tested by the team currently. At this point, it is basically content complete (meaning nothing more gets added). So anything you request has to already be in the DLC as it is too late to add it in now.

Whew!  For a minute there I thought this upcoming DLC would have some sort of bearing on the story. 

[nrobbiec]

PainCakesx wrote...

nrobbiec wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

nrobbiec wrote...

But a lot of the "feedback" is just mindless whining, in their shoes you'd ignore it too.

That is incredibly unfair. There has been some mindless *****ing, but there have been a lot of valid and well thought out criticisms as well. To brush off a huge portion of the fan base as just "mindless whining" is categorically unfair. 

Not saying there aren't constructive criticisms but if ten people are screaming at you in one ear and one person is talking normally in the other who are you going to hear?

It's not exactly hard to find well thought out criticisms of the ending. 

It is easier to find the stuck records and the raving lunatics 

At the end of the day, it doesn't change anything. Why can't people just be happy with what they have?

[Meltemph]

Why can't people just be happy with what they have?

Not sure if serious... "Deal with it", approach I've never found to be particularly healthy.

[sr2josh]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Omega was pretty good, Chris, but is there any chance of patching the glaring animation bugs during Aria's speech?


(I didn't add the text)

That's not a bug but one of Aria's spooky biotic powers.

[nrobbiec]

Meltemph wrote...

Why can't people just be happy with what they have?

Not sure if serious... "Deal with it", approach I've never found to be particularly healthy.

Not quite "deal with it" more "be at peace with it"

[Meltemph]

nrobbiec wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Why can't people just be happy with what they have?

Not sure if serious... "Deal with it", approach I've never found to be particularly healthy.

Not quite "deal with it" more "be at peace with it"

Same meaning.  "Being ahppy with it" comes across as incredibly sheepish, specially if someone isnt happy with it..

[nrobbiec]

Meltemph wrote...

nrobbiec wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Why can't people just be happy with what they have?

Not sure if serious... "Deal with it", approach I've never found to be particularly healthy.

Not quite "deal with it" more "be at peace with it"

Same meaning.  "Being ahppy with it" comes across as incredibly sheepish, specially if someone isnt happy with it..

Not quite what I was trying to get across but I need sleep so words not happening so well.

[BearlyHere]

nrobbiec wrote...

At the end of the day, it doesn't change anything. Why can't people just be happy with what I have?

Fixed that for you.

[PainCakesx]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The RPGenius wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...To say "they're not giving us new endings, they aren't listening" (or whatever) is not true.

But you aren't giving us new endings, and since the ending is the single largest aspect of the game that we give give the most feedback about, you aren't listening.  I don't know whether you're forced to just keep feeding us one PR-approved line of BS you don't actually believe in after another, or if you're just honestly playing make-believe with the way human logic works, but just because you say something isn't true, that doesn't mean God's going to rearrange the way reality works to back you up.  Bioware is not listening.

Me thinks you need to re-look at what the definition of 'listening' is.

Hint: it isn't 'agree' or 'do what you hear.'

No, it isn't.

Yes, technically BioWare would be addressing fan feedback if they make it "Story related", include "ME2 characters" or contain more "LI content."

But all of that ignores the elephant in the room - the one issue that for many overshadows the other requests and feedback. Story related DLC with ME2 characters and LI content would be awesome, if it weren't for the ending. So while they would be technically addressing fan feedback, they'd be ignoring the feedback that many / most find *most* important. 

Modifié par PainCakesx, 12 février 2013 - 03:13 .

[KENNY4753]

so after reading this entire thread....

to the OP- whether it be more in the space battle or more of the ground assault, I will be fine. Something to make my War Assets mean more than just a number.

Now to what Chris turned this thread into...feedback

Yes just because you listen to feedback does not mean you must do what is requested but maybe if you and the writers/designers actually joined into feedback discussions and actually contributed to them other than saying "there are no new endings. Deal with it" people may actually respect you and possibly trust what you say. If you truely cared for our feedback you would discuss with us ways the feedback can be incorporated. That doesnt mean it has to be done but it shows that you cared about what we had to say by taking the time to discuss with us.

The DA team does this great. I see guys like Gaider join in discussions about requests by fans for DA3 and actually discussing why it wont work or why it may be possible or even just answering random fan questions.

The ME3 mp team does this too. I remember a fellow bsn user was creating a MP dlc request and a mp dev actually helped him create powers. Whether those powers would be in new dlc or not the dev showed that he cared about the users feedback and ideas by taking the time to discuss them with him. I also remember the 'Hey Derek' and 'Meet Bryan' threads. Derek and Bryan actually cared enough about our feedback and what we had to say to answer almost every question asked. Not all questions were requests or feedback but a lot were.

That all being said you, casey, mac, and others need to get rid of the 'the endings arent being changed so anything ending related is getting ignored' mentality and actually try to understand the fan outrage.

Anybody from BW this question is for you- "What do you believe are the reasons people hate the endings?"

If you really listened to our feedback then answer that simple question. Was it lack of different endings or was it the lack of Harbinger or was it the Catalyst itself or something else. You tell me Bioware. because apparently you do listen.

[Mcfly616]

They certainly listen to feedback. Maybe not yours....or mine. But you can't say they don't listen to feedback just because you don't see what you specifically wanted, incorporated into the content.


Some people wanted to fight along side Aria. Check. Some people wanted to see a Female Turian. Bioware gave us one as a temporary squadmate. Some people wanted to see a different enemy type. Adjutants, and the mechs from ME2 were back with a few new tricks.


A lot of people made it known that the lack of squad dialogue is a real downer for any DLC. We got a fully voiced crew in Leviathan.


Like I said, they listen. And they incorporate certain feedback into their work. Not mine. Maybe not yours. But nonetheless, to say they don't take feedback into account is rather ignorant.

[Oni Changas]

They listen, they hear, but they refuse to act on the voices. Same ol' philosophy, "it's its complained about, do away with it completely rather than fix its problems."

Whether that's good or bad is up to you, take it how you want.

Also, on the whole "just because we listen doesn't mean we have to do what you say" argument, you can't have it both ways. Something gets a few grumbles? Sure, but if its overwhelmming feedback and you've "done what we said you should do" with things such as SS relationships or axing mineral scanning, logic would point to taking time to revamp the epilogue in a meaningful way. Just because we showed some intrigue with IT doesn't mean we want you to break copyright issues. It's just an idea, an example. BW is filled with creative genius, you guys could've blown IT out the water with something better, yet for some reason you felt compelled to stick with that thing that trapped you in the writing corner.

Modifié par OniTYME, 12 février 2013 - 05:23 .