232 réponses à ce sujet

[FlyingSquirrel]

I think they probably did, yes, though they have plenty of company when it comes to these sorts of storylines. The premise to Mass Effect ended up being, "Here are these unfathomably powerful entities. They've been wiping out advanced civilizations for millions of years and have barely suffered a scratch. Now go defeat them."

I can think of a number of other sci-fi/fantasy stories where the narrative struggles to establish its enormous sweep and still credibly have the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory. For example:

- Lord of the Rings (film version) - Frodo fails and succumbs to the ring's allure. He and Sam only survive because Gollum bites his finger off, along with the ring, and falls into the lava.

- Star Trek: First Contact - For all Picard does, he doesn't actually defeat the Borg; he just battles them to a stalemate. And if the Queen hadn't become bizarrely preoccupied with trying to assimilate Data, she might have still been able to destroy Cochrane's ship by remote.

- Independence Day: Humanity probably would have been wiped out if the aliens had installed Norton Internet Security.

- The X-Files: At one point it seemed like the alien invasion was defunct, but less because of anything Mulder and Scully did than because another group of aliens intervened. Later it was revived and was still very much a threat last we saw.

- Doctor Who: The original series had a six-part arc about the "Key to Time," where the Doctor corrects an imbalance in the universe by finding and collecting six pieces of the "Key," which have been disguised as other objects and scattered throughout space and time. Sure, the Doctor and the Time Lords are powerful, but...really? How and why would such a structure even exist in the first place?

Mass Effect's shortcomings aren't really all that unique or surprising, IMO. They're more an indicator that stories like this are extremely difficult to pull off.

[AlanC9]

dafangirl wrote...

The first thing one is taught in school when creating a story is to begin with a skeleton framework...maybe it's time for BioWare to go back to school.

Though when you study what actual writers do, you find that this isn't how a lot of them operate.

I don't see any particular reason to think that a pre-planned ME series would have necessarily had a better ending anyway.

However the overall theme/message had a "whisper-down-the-lane" effect from ME1 to ME3. I just finished another ME1 last night and Vigil clearly states in response to Shepard asking, "The war was lost, maybe if you surrendered..." to which Vigil responds along the lines of "No offer of surrender was ever given...the Reapers had one goal the galactic EXTINCTION of all advanced organic life." That goal somehow became the PRESERVATION of organic life in ME3.

All that means is that Vigil didn't know everything. I don't know why anyone ever thought he did know everything, since he flatly states that most of what he tells you about the Reapers is speculation.

[Wayning_Star]

AlanC9 wrote...

dafangirl wrote...

The first thing one is taught in school when creating a story is to begin with a skeleton framework...maybe it's time for BioWare to go back to school.

Though when you study what actual writers do, you find that this isn't how a lot of them operate.

I don't see any particular reason to think that a pre-planned ME series would have necessarily had a better ending anyway.

However the overall theme/message had a "whisper-down-the-lane" effect from ME1 to ME3. I just finished another ME1 last night and Vigil clearly states in response to Shepard asking, "The war was lost, maybe if you surrendered..." to which Vigil responds along the lines of "No offer of surrender was ever given...the Reapers had one goal the galactic EXTINCTION of all advanced organic life." That goal somehow became the PRESERVATION of organic life in ME3.

All that means is that Vigil didn't know everything. I don't know why anyone ever thought he did know everything, since he flatly states that most of what he tells you about the Reapers is speculation.

as well as just because we're led to believe that the reapers motives were wrought from their wish for organic extinction actually means just that. Belief some times can confuse actual facts.

[AlanC9]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
I can think of a number of other sci-fi/fantasy stories where the narrative struggles to establish its enormous sweep and still credibly have the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory. For example:

- Lord of the Rings (film version) - Frodo fails and succumbs to the ring's allure. He and Sam only survive because Gollum bites his finger off, along with the ring, and falls into the lava.

Book version too. Not a problem here, since Tolkein wasn't trying to have "the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory" in the first place.

[The Night Mammoth]

AlanC9 wrote...

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
I can think of a number of other sci-fi/fantasy stories where the narrative struggles to establish its enormous sweep and still credibly have the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory. For example:

- Lord of the Rings (film version) - Frodo fails and succumbs to the ring's allure. He and Sam only survive because Gollum bites his finger off, along with the ring, and falls into the lava.

Book version too. Not a problem here, since Tolkein wasn't trying to have "the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory" in the first place.

Isn't the end of the book more to do with how small decisions end up mattering in the end, and fate? 

I don't remember since I read it years ago, but doesn't Gollum slip entirely of his own accord as opposed to falling off the edge because Frodo fights him for the ring?

[JPN17]

Mumba1511 wrote...

No, the only problem was the story that was written as they went along.

I believe this was the number one problem. Yeah EA pushing Bioware along didn't help matters, but not having even an outline of a story really threw the trilogy off. It's no more apparent than in ME2, which as it turned out was nothing but filler. The speech Shepard gives at the end of ME could just as easily been said at the end of ME2, because nothing changed. Looking back on it, a lot of the stuff that happened in 3, curing the genophage, solving the geth/quarian conflict, etc, should have been covered in ME2. IMO ME2 should have been about the preparation of the galaxy for the reaper invasion, not about recruitment/loyalty quests. That would have allowed ME3 to focus much more on the reapers and the invasion rather than running around doing stuff that should already have been taken care of and it would have made ME3 feel much less disjointed.

This was a story that could have been finished well. Bioware just showed one of the ways you can screw it up.

[SpamBot2000]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
I can think of a number of other sci-fi/fantasy stories where the narrative struggles to establish its enormous sweep and still credibly have the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory. For example:

- Lord of the Rings (film version) - Frodo fails and succumbs to the ring's allure. He and Sam only survive because Gollum bites his finger off, along with the ring, and falls into the lava.

Book version too. Not a problem here, since Tolkein wasn't trying to have "the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory" in the first place.

Isn't the end of the book more to do with how small decisions end up mattering in the end, and fate? 

I don't remember since I read it years ago, but doesn't Gollum slip entirely of his own accord as opposed to falling off the edge because Frodo fights him for the ring?

As I recall (it's been years & years since I read it), it was heavily implied that Frodo did succeed in his epic quest because he kindly insisted on sparing Gollum's life, and in the end that kindness saved the day when Frodo's resolve faltered. Guy was nice, world was saved. Tolkien apparently believed in good guys winning through being good guys. 

I guess he was no Mac Walters when it comes to telling an epic story.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 19 mars 2013 - 09:13 .

[The Night Mammoth]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
I can think of a number of other sci-fi/fantasy stories where the narrative struggles to establish its enormous sweep and still credibly have the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory. For example:

- Lord of the Rings (film version) - Frodo fails and succumbs to the ring's allure. He and Sam only survive because Gollum bites his finger off, along with the ring, and falls into the lava.

Book version too. Not a problem here, since Tolkein wasn't trying to have "the hero be up to the task of winning a convincing and final victory" in the first place.

Isn't the end of the book more to do with how small decisions end up mattering in the end, and fate? 

I don't remember since I read it years ago, but doesn't Gollum slip entirely of his own accord as opposed to falling off the edge because Frodo fights him for the ring?

As I recall (it's been years & years since I read it), it was heavily implied that Frodo did succeed in his epic quest because he kindly insisted on sparing Gollum's life, and in the end that kindness saved the day when Frodo's resolve faltered. Guy was nice, world was saved. Tolkien apparently believed in good guys winning through being good guys. 

I guess he was no Mac Walters when it comes to telling an epic story.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I remember taking from it. Bilbo and Frodo spared Gollum's life out of pity and kindness and as a result, the ring was destroyed when Gollum fell at the end. The hero is the hero, but is still flawed and vulnerable. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 19 mars 2013 - 09:18 .

[Jukaga]

dafangirl wrote...

@Jukaga and AlanC9 Vigil's P.O.V. coupled with the labs on Eden Prime in ME3 seem to tell a tale of destruction not preservation.

Yes, from Vigil's point of view it is pure destruction but he doesn't have the full picture. The preservation bit is not for all individuals per se, but the 'essence' of the culture and civilization that would live on in Reaper form. To you and me it is destruction but to the Reapers they are 'saving' at least an impression of that civilization.

[Funkdrspot]

Rushed project by EA who also forced them to use Kinect at the last minute and diluted their talent with SWTOR. Give Bioware another 6 months and they work out their issues with indoctrination, ME3 MP gets all the updates +some and ME3 goes down as the greatest game of all time

[L_B_123]

Out of interest did writers leave Bioware while try wrote mass effect 3? I ask this because I've just played Rannoch again( the last truly great moment) and the reaper discusses how Harbinger still talks about Shepard. Did they remove the obsession when new writers were introduced? If they were new ones. I mean this guy wanted shepard in his reaper in ME2 or something so I can't imagine he'd have just sent MS and husks to get his body.

[L_B_123]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

As for the OP, I would say yes, they did... and that's alright, because at the end of the day Mass Effect remains what it started as: an experimental project aiming at a continuation-RPG trilogy.

It's easy to point at various other games for a one-on-one comparison, but no one else has ever really attempted a connection between games like ME1-3 did. Even The Witcher 2, held up as a paragon of branching narrative role playing, doesn't come close to even trying the sort of carry-over import impacts that the ME trilogy did. It's easy to rely on hindsight and say 'you did it wrong', but while there were certainly some problems that could have, should have, been recognized in advance (ME2's premise of the suicide mission, killable characters and all), others can very much be forgiven on the grounds of them trying to learn it as they went. Trying to figure how to work in character returns, for example.

The ME trilogy was a trailblazer, and part of blazing trails is being the one to break brush and get nasty The trilogy did have elements of reach exceeding grasp, but that's hardly a fatal sin..

thats always been the saving grace for me- Bioware always said ME was an experiment to see if they could do it- now they know they can they just have to write the trilogy or at least plan it's outline from te start . I can't see them using the information though because E own them-so as much as love EA for releasing it on y ps3, I know they're not great for allowing evolution of games

[L_B_123]

tickle267 wrote...

the fact that fans have been able to make (in my opinion) satisfying endings, means that surely bioware could have done so as well quite easily. so no i don't think they did.

its easier to say than do, I'm not defending Bioware in any way but some endings I've read would require huge changes to the story and would also be quite hard to build up; I just wish the suicide mission was in ME3 rather than 2, the alpha relay could have got you to the catalyst( which isn't godchild). I realise how much would need changing hoigh

[OdanUrr]

Do you think Bioware bit off more than they could chew?

I think... therefore I am.

[Massa FX]

No.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

I think that a series of problems introduced throughout the series, from ME's nigh-invincible Reapers and dead-end narrative, to ME2's irrelevance and (continuity) Suicide Mission, coupled with a real lack of direction backed the series so far into a corner that truly resolving it in a satisfying and coherent manner would be incredibly difficult.

[Anacronian Stryx]

I think the whole Mass Effect project was incredible ambitious and i applaud Bioware for even trying to make three games linked so firmly together, I don't usually have much praise for Bioware but i will applaud them for this and yes i do think they could have pulled it off had they continued to be Bioware but since they became EA's RPG division the project was doomed.

[Kel Riever]

No, they could have executed with the DLC.

They chose not to. Egg on face is well deserved.

[Reorte]

Made up as it went along resulting in an impossible situation. If the Reapers were powerful enough to steamroller many, many previous cycles then there's just no convincing way to pull off making them defeatable in this one. We've either got to be impossibly special (and that just looks ludicrously arrogant) or impossibly lucky (and that just looks ludicrous).

[David7204]

That isn't true.

I think I could have done it.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

David7204 wrote...

That isn't true.

I think I could have done it.

Well then I think you shouldn't be distracted by women or romance ever.  So lets put you on a tropical island and keep you safe.

Now now....don't you worry about the human race...we'll procreate as best we can but we can't have you dying on us.

[Reorte]

David7204 wrote...

That isn't true.

I think I could have done it.

If you pull it off I'll hail you as a genuine genius.

[Megaton_Hope]

Mumba1511 wrote...

No, the only problem was the story that was written as they went along.

That's very much the impression I get. I've seen this problem wreak havoc on television programs, too. The Prisoner, for example, has an enjoyably mysterious conflict up unil the last episode, when everything turns to bull****. Legend of Korra falls right on its face, trying to introduce and then resolve the problem of Korra losing her powers in the course of basically two episodes. (Which is really sad, because the previous series was so good. Except the ending...)

I think the idea of leaving the ending until last is just a bad plan. Sometimes you get squeezed into committing to something that's just bad, or that doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the narrative. Just no way to operate.

[Calibrations52]

They bit a lot more off than they could chew imo. Honestly, I think the Mass Effect 3 plot COULD have worked over the course of two games. Ultimately, there was just too much stuffed into 3 to achieve the proper explanation needed for such confusing concepts. An intermediate game between 2 and the hypothetical 4 could have introduced the Crucible idea and dealt with the genophage and Rannoch arcs. Then the fourth game could have focused solely on the Reapers. I'd still say that scrapping the catalyst would have been a good idea. ME3 was an ambitious game. Extremely ambitious. But the ambition really led to the plot unraveling as the game progressed.

I think BW sealed their fate with lack of foresight in laying out the trilogy. They got off to a good start with ME1. ME2 seemed to be almost a diversion from the main Reaper plot, instead focusing on the characters. Finally, ME3 was so busy trying to tie up loose ends that the plot got lost in between. It's a crying shame because the trilogy had the potential to be one of, if not the best video game trilogy EVER. Instead, it's a great trilogy with a few flaws.

[knightnblu]

Wayning_Star wrote...

knightnblu wrote...

Honestly, I don't believe that for a second. I have seen some amazing things come out of BioWare studios and I believe that they could handle the ME universe and do it justice. I'm just spit balling here, but I don't believe that he problems with ME3 were creative issues. I think that they were management issues that interfered with the creative process. Do I know that for a fact? Absolutely not, but there are just too many coincidences for there not to have been a leadership problem at the company.

In the end, I just don't think that BioWare meshed all that well with EA. While EA provided greater flexibility for bankrolling projects, they also trend toward a formulaic approach that stifles creativity and that is where I believe that ME3 went off of the rails. I think that years down the road we will learn that EA had a greater hand in the ME3 ending disaster than anybody has let on thus far. But again, that is pure speculation.

there isn't really any 'ending disaster' only fan tea cup tempests. I never had any problems with the ending of ME3, ever. Only until I reached the BSN did the trumpets of doom blare on the trilogy. As with most video games, the endings usually lack luster,as the story and finances of profits carry the day in business practices. We're micro managing the thing, instead of just enjoying what we purchased as it is. ONLY because bioware has this chat page for feed back...and it's almost become a spectator sport with interactive qualities in of it's self..lol

Really? You must lead a sheltered life. I have witnessed journalists who voiced the same opinion back pedal, I have seen polls where more than 90,000 people expressed disgust with the OE, and I have seen BioWare spend a mountain of cash on the EC DLC. Why would they do that to appease 100 gamers? Why would so called journalists publish articles calling those who didn't care for the OE whining and entitled fans only to abandon that position and take up the meme? Could it be that they were protecting their own profit margins once they understood the numbers? Why would they do that for 300 loud mouthed gamers?
 
The answer is obvious, there are a lot more than 90,000 gamers who were irate at the OE. The Better Business Bureau even weighed in and said that BioWare's actions bordered on false advertising because of the ending. Yet you are blissfully unaware of any of that and only believe that it was Bob in Butte, Montana with nothing, but time on his hands that started it all and kept the furor rolling.
 
And what of Maruader Shields and those that "Hold the Line" still? All three of those guys must have no life to fake the stats on that. Regardless, believe what you will as there is more than enough evidence to prove you wrong for I am certain that I won't convince you.