232 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

I don't think they bit off more than they could chew. I just think they failed to make even a skeleton plan from ME1 to ME3. They made it up as they went and it shows.

Kind of like the Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean. First one did well, they hadn't planned on making a trilogy so they had to try to make it all mesh as they went along.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

I would say no op, the problem as I see it is one of planning, there was none in this trilogy and the ending shows it.

The Dark Knight trilogy wasn't planned, the film Bourne trilogy wasn't planned....trilogies don't have to be planned.

The prequel Star Wars trilogy was planned....and look how that turned out.

You can tell the Dark knight trilogy wasn't planned, but they at least are good films and please the Bourne series were books first.

Mass Effects problems is one of planning.

No, the Bourne books and films have different plots.

And with the Dark Energy plot being a disaster, I am glad its less planned.

I never said anything about dark energy plot and I know the plots in the Bourne books and movies are different but the movies takes its inspiration from the books. Since you mentioned the dark energy plot I will say it wasn't anymore ridiculous then what we got.

and still my point remains the Mass Effect trilogy's problems is one of planning.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 20 mars 2013 - 10:44 .

[txgoldrush]

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

I would say no op, the problem as I see it is one of planning, there was none in this trilogy and the ending shows it.

The Dark Knight trilogy wasn't planned, the film Bourne trilogy wasn't planned....trilogies don't have to be planned.

The prequel Star Wars trilogy was planned....and look how that turned out.

You can tell the Dark knight trilogy wasn't planned, but they at least are good films and please the Bourne series were books first.

Mass Effects problems is one of planning.

No, the Bourne books and films have different plots.

And with the Dark Energy plot being a disaster, I am glad its less planned.

I never said anything about dark energy plot and I know the plots in the Bourne books and movies are different but the movies takes its inspiration from the books. Since you mentioned the dark energy plot I will say it wasn't anymore ridiculous then what we got.

and still my point remains the Mass Effect trilogy's problems is one of planning.

No, the problems of the trilogy is one of an overrated lead writer, Drew Karpyshyn, who sucks with characterization thats not the villian, fails to properly develop his characters (leading to major character development more in between ME1 and ME2, than in ME1 itself), and fails utterly when it comes to grasping grey morality...I wonder why some Renegade choices are dead ended, like the all human council.

Dark Energy plot is a plot hole.....

Yo dawg, lets let organics use our dark energy tech, so we can harvest them to stop the spread of dark energy.

Drew Karpyshyn would have taken Mass Effect far more off the rails than Mac Walters ever did....like he took Jade Empire of its rails in the last third of the game with contrivance after contrivance. But he left Mass Effect and took the characters of Revan, Exile, and HK47 off its rails.

All Mac did was revisit the themes of ME1, thats it.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 20 mars 2013 - 11:30 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I disagree there was little to no planning for the trilogy and it show there are multiple lore inconsistencies, they brake there own universes rules and the end to the overarching plot does not fit with the rest of the trilogy, its like its the end to a different game.

[txgoldrush]

DinoSteve wrote...

I disagree there was little to no planning for the trilogy and it show there are multiple lore inconsistencies, they brake there own universes rules and the end to the overarching plot does not fit with the rest of the trilogy, its like its the end to a different game.

Wrong.

Each Mass Effect game has a different main theme. The ending to ME3 is pretty damn consistant to the rest of ME3, as teh endings of the other two were consistant with those games. But guess what? Many trilogies have different main themes for each entry. The Dark Knight for example.

And no, they don't break the rules of the universe for th emost part, they rewrite them using characters with far more lore authority. Vigil simply does not have as much lore authority as the Catalyst.

[The Night Mammoth]

Do tell, what is the main theme of each game?

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 20 mars 2013 - 11:48 .

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Do tell, what are the main themes of each game?

ME1 is about humanity finding its place in the galaxy...and the end of ME1 establishes humanity's place.

ME2 is about gaining loyalty and trust of your allies to prepare for a task deemed impossible.

ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Do tell, what are the main themes of each game?

ME1 is about humanity finding its place in the galaxy...and the end of ME1 establishes humanity's place.

ME2 is about gaining loyalty and trust of your allies to prepare for a task deemed impossible.

ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

That isn't anymore prevalent than certain other themes in the first game.

That's not a theme.

That can't be a theme, because potentially no one sacrifices themselves, and even so, it's not more important than other aspects of the game. 

None of them have main themes, and the series does not have a main theme.

[Shadow Storm]

samurai crusade wrote...

No. The problem was time, and being forced to spit out a game to meet EAs financial table

The new culture of blaming it on time and EA is only a desperate attempt by fans to make sense of a bad ending. The fact of the matter is it was NOT EA that wrote the story and it was NOT EA that programmed it they only financed it. Bioware has a choice wether or not to add the content they did and they did so ignoring the outcry by so many fans. When you are given a deadline, like any job, you work your ass off to make sure you meet that quota.

Turning around later and crying that you did not have enough time is beyond a joke. Lets say the deadline was a bit tight they still had many opportunities to fix the mistakes they made with DLC but they chose not to claiming you cannot please everyone. Which we all know is a deflective answer which was incorrect. They COULD please everyone by doing as we asked and make a happy ending to go with the bad that reflected our hard work. Instead they gave us a give up option. It is Bioware's fault and only Bioware's fault and it is about time people stand up and take responsibility for their mistakes rather then shifting blame elsewhere.

Modifié par Raiden Storm, 21 mars 2013 - 12:04 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

I disagree there was little to no planning for the trilogy and it show there are multiple lore inconsistencies, they brake there own universes rules and the end to the overarching plot does not fit with the rest of the trilogy, its like its the end to a different game.

Wrong.

Each Mass Effect game has a different main theme. The ending to ME3 is pretty damn consistant to the rest of ME3, as teh endings of the other two were consistant with those games. But guess what? Many trilogies have different main themes for each entry. The Dark Knight for example.

And no, they don't break the rules of the universe for th emost part, they rewrite them using characters with far more lore authority. Vigil simply does not have as much lore authority as the Catalyst.

Just because you say it is wrong, doesn't make it so, and this conversation has become silly, trying to talk to you is like talking to a child, so peace.

I'm out.

[AlanC9]

txgoldrush wrote...


Drew Karpyshyn would have taken Mass Effect far more off the rails than Mac Walters ever did....like he took Jade Empire of its rails in the last third of the game with contrivance after contrivance. But he left Mass Effect and took the characters of Revan, Exile, and HK47 off its rails.

He wrecked HK-47 too?

[spirosz]

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

I disagree there was little to no planning for the trilogy and it show there are multiple lore inconsistencies, they brake there own universes rules and the end to the overarching plot does not fit with the rest of the trilogy, its like its the end to a different game.

Wrong.

Each Mass Effect game has a different main theme. The ending to ME3 is pretty damn consistant to the rest of ME3, as teh endings of the other two were consistant with those games. But guess what? Many trilogies have different main themes for each entry. The Dark Knight for example.

And no, they don't break the rules of the universe for th emost part, they rewrite them using characters with far more lore authority. Vigil simply does not have as much lore authority as the Catalyst.

Just because you say it is wrong, doesn't make it so, and this conversation has become silly, trying to talk to you is like talking to a child, so peace.

I'm out.

Good plan^ 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think they underestimated the fans, got crunched by EA's deadlines, got a bit arrogant (a few writers anyway), and simply were tired and worn out creatively (this one swings back to the EA deadlines. EA didn't give them the time they needed to let the juices flow creatively).

Last, but definitely not least, the arrogant writers simply had a bad idea and for whatever reason ran with it. It's all inter-connected. 

Due to EA's scheduling crunch, the writers were worn out quickly trying to make a game to meet a deadline. In doing so, they underestimated the fans intelligence to tell a story that really had nothing to do with the franchise proper. Due to their successes in the past, they were definitely arrogant and believed that the fans would accept a lot of the stuff presented to them. And due to being worn out and on a tight schedule, they simply decided to take a concept and make it the main theme, since they were too tired to do anything else. This pissed off a huge portion of the fanbase (myself included), but BW had too muh pride to admit they had a bad idea, or at least say that they implemented it wrong. 

We did get a perfunctory 'we're listening' DLC that was supposed to fix the problems with the ending. All it really did was make the original endings 10 minutes longer.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 mars 2013 - 12:19 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

spirosz wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

I disagree there was little to no planning for the trilogy and it show there are multiple lore inconsistencies, they brake there own universes rules and the end to the overarching plot does not fit with the rest of the trilogy, its like its the end to a different game.

Wrong.

Each Mass Effect game has a different main theme. The ending to ME3 is pretty damn consistant to the rest of ME3, as teh endings of the other two were consistant with those games. But guess what? Many trilogies have different main themes for each entry. The Dark Knight for example.

And no, they don't break the rules of the universe for th emost part, they rewrite them using characters with far more lore authority. Vigil simply does not have as much lore authority as the Catalyst.

Just because you say it is wrong, doesn't make it so, and this conversation has become silly, trying to talk to you is like talking to a child, so peace.

I'm out.

Good plan^ 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 mars 2013 - 12:19 .

[chemiclord]

Did they bite off more than they can chew? Yes and no.

A massive part in how the narrative starts to crack from the strain and collapse under its own weight is the team's admitted lack of a greater plan as they were putting together ME1. It is VERY difficult to make up a story as you go along... it's possible, but it takes a very specific combination of good fortune, improvisational talent, and an uncanny ability to manage details for it to work.

In that sense, a lot of the disaster could have been avoided with better story planning. For example, had they known that they were running with the entire Catalyst idea from the beginning, the seeds for that plotline could have been planted a lot earlier and avoiding a great deal of the Deus Ex Machina accusations.

That said, even WITH proper planning; a lot of the things fans despise in ME3 were inevitable. With all the options that were given over two games, the sheer number of permutations that had to be accounted for far outstripped the resources and limitations they had. Less favored story lines (like romancing Jacob) were GOING to be handwaved and dropped . Characters that had little following (Morinth) were GOING to get the shaft. Ways of cutting corners with the dialogue (autodialogue and dropping of the "neutral" option) were necessary so that all the different ways the scenes could play out were moderately possible.

In that regard, yes, Bioware DID bite off more than they could chew; in that the selling point of the series (the unprecedented level of "player control") was also in a way its undoing.

[hiraeth]

chemiclord wrote...

In that regard, yes, Bioware DID bite off more than they could chew; in that the selling point of the series (the unprecedented level of "player control") was also in a way its undoing.

Agreed.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Do tell, what are the main themes of each game?

ME1 is about humanity finding its place in the galaxy...and the end of ME1 establishes humanity's place.

ME2 is about gaining loyalty and trust of your allies to prepare for a task deemed impossible.

ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

That isn't anymore prevalent than certain other themes in the first game.

That's not a theme.

That can't be a theme, because potentially no one sacrifices themselves, and even so, it's not more important than other aspects of the game. 

None of them have main themes, and the series does not have a main theme.

It doesn't have to be more prevelant, it just has to define the work. The nature of ME1 ending and the entire thing was humanity trying to finds its place in the galaxy.

It most definitely is a theme...if you come prepared, you survive, don't prepare, you die. The reason that Shepard will succeed in the suicide mission is because of his crew's focus and his leadership.

No one sacrifices themselves in ME3? Are you kidding...wow. And once again, that theme is the definitive one in ALL endings in the EC. The other themes cannot make this case.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 21 mars 2013 - 12:37 .

[Dude_in_the_Room]

Just wanted to say that I am reading 90% of all the posts.  I find the opinions on this interesting.

[txgoldrush]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

I echo what a lot of people have been saying about this being a slow cornering process. I see it as a domino effect of plot decisions that were either made in isolation of the overall story or not well-thought out. First we have the reapers, which are given incredible and unparalleled galactic power. Then we start ME3 with the spirit of "OK, let's unite the galaxy and then we can do this!" but then learn that conventional means won't cut it (not surprising). Then we have the eventual introduction of a super-weapon that can destroy the reapers (Crucible)...fine, it seems incredibly contrived, especially when the first time I'm hearing about this is after the war has started, but I'll deal. Instead of ending it there, another domino drops and someone has the idea of giving the Crucible multiple functions that ultimately corner the player into making a decision that (a) the player may not be prepared to make, especially since the conditions of the decisions were incredibly unclear, and ( keeps us from doing the one thing we wanted to do...stop the reapers under our own steam. We're left with an ending that left many confused, disappointed, and feeling like they finally hit the bottom of a slippery slope that arguably started as early as ME1.

IDK, I try not to focus on the plot itself and instead focus on the game elements that were slowly abandoned throughout the series (e.g., treatment of dialogue options, character focus--especially with Shepard, etc.). They might have bitten off more than they can chew with the plot, but there were many other game elements that just didn't come through that certainly didn't help the situation.

The treatment of dialogue options was simply done wrong in ME1 and ME2, by defining tone with philosophy, and the script having to account for too many dialogue options, watering down the script and decresing the quality of Shepards writing. Player agency should in service to th eplot and the writing, not the plot and writing be in service of player agency.

And no, the Crucible is not contrived...it fits with the theme establsihed in ME1 of the race before assisting the race after. Nevermind a device that simply uses the Reapers own tech against them is not contrived (ok I will give you synthesis, but not destroy and control).

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Do tell, what are the main themes of each game?

ME1 is about humanity finding its place in the galaxy...and the end of ME1 establishes humanity's place.

ME2 is about gaining loyalty and trust of your allies to prepare for a task deemed impossible.

ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

That isn't anymore prevalent than certain other themes in the first game.

That's not a theme.

That can't be a theme, because potentially no one sacrifices themselves, and even so, it's not more important than other aspects of the game. 

None of them have main themes, and the series does not have a main theme.

It doesn't have to be more prevelant, it just has to define the work. The nature of ME1 ending and the entire thing was humanity trying to finds its place in the galaxy.

The theme can't define the work if it's not more prevalent than other aspects of it. 

It most definitely is a theme...if you come prepared, you survive, don't prepare, you die. The reason that Shepard will succeed in the suicide mission is because of his crew's focus and his leadership.

That still doesn't make it a theme, what you're describing is part of the premise. 

No one sacrifices themselves in ME3? Are you kidding...wow. And once again, that theme is the definitive one in ALL endings in the EC. The other themes cannot make this case.

Go read what I posted again, except more carefully. There are important words you missed which resulted in you missing the point. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 21 mars 2013 - 12:46 .

[hiraeth]

txgoldrush wrote...

The treatment of dialogue options was simply done wrong in ME1 and ME2, by defining tone with philosophy, and the script having to account for too many dialogue options, watering down the script and decresing the quality of Shepards writing. Player agency should in service to th eplot and the writing, not the plot and writing be in service of player agency.

And no, the Crucible is not contrived...it fits with the theme establsihed in ME1 of the race before assisting the race after. Nevermind a device that simply uses the Reapers own tech against them is not contrived (ok I will give you synthesis, but not destroy and control).

I give you that ME1 and 2 had a script that had to account for many dialogue options, but I preferred this to ME3 where autodialogue ran rampant and I felt like (a) my Shepard was doing things that were out of character for the person I created through ME1 and 2, and ( I had very little control over how my character was reacting to the plot. I agree that you finalize the plot and writing and then work on how to give the player agency to interact with those...but I didn't feel like that was done in ME3 (but was done in ME1 and 2).

Perhaps contrivance is a subjective experience...when I first heard of the Crucible on my first playthrough, I thought "really? we're going to just have a switch that can kill reapers? a galactic army won't do anything, but this switch will?"...it just seemed so anticlimatic, so random and weak. If I think about it long enough, I can probably dig through dialogue in ME1 (not so much ME2) and find the theme of races passing down plans and I can find a line where Anderson mentioned the possibility of a superweapon, but I just didn't feel prepared--nor was I expecting--that a superweapon was going to be the answer to taking the reapers down. Especially one that has relatively little in-game lore explanation (cue: "You do not know them, and there is not enough time to explain").

[o Ventus]

So suddenly discovering a billions year old device that just so happens to be capable of defeating the unbeatable enemy (the exact hour they arrive, no less) isn't contrived?

Do you know what "contrived" means?

[txgoldrush]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The treatment of dialogue options was simply done wrong in ME1 and ME2, by defining tone with philosophy, and the script having to account for too many dialogue options, watering down the script and decresing the quality of Shepards writing. Player agency should in service to th eplot and the writing, not the plot and writing be in service of player agency.

And no, the Crucible is not contrived...it fits with the theme establsihed in ME1 of the race before assisting the race after. Nevermind a device that simply uses the Reapers own tech against them is not contrived (ok I will give you synthesis, but not destroy and control).

I give you that ME1 and 2 had a script that had to account for many dialogue options, but I preferred this to ME3 where autodialogue ran rampant and I felt like (a) my Shepard was doing things that were out of character for the person I created through ME1 and 2, and ( I had very little control over how my character was reacting to the plot. I agree that you finalize the plot and writing and then work on how to give the player agency to interact with those...but I didn't feel like that was done in ME3 (but was done in ME1 and 2).

Perhaps contrivance is a subjective experience...when I first heard of the Crucible on my first playthrough, I thought "really? we're going to just have a switch that can kill reapers? a galactic army won't do anything, but this switch will?"...it just seemed so anticlimatic, so random and weak. If I think about it long enough, I can probably dig through dialogue in ME1 (not so much ME2) and find the theme of races passing down plans and I can find a line where Anderson mentioned the possibility of a superweapon, but I just didn't feel prepared--nor was I expecting--that a superweapon was going to be the answer to taking the reapers down. Especially one that has relatively little in-game lore explanation (cue: "You do not know them, and there is not enough time to explain").

Really, pay attention to everything Liara says on Mars, she makes the Crucible far less contrived than you are making it out to be, In fact LOTSB hints that the Broker had more Prothean data than the one used on Ilos. Its not contrived, it jsut wasn't Shepard's story.

And no, the problem with ME1 and ME2 is despite all those options....only a major Paragon or Reneagde character is feasible for te best outcomes. Nevermind that Shepard in th efirst two games, as well as Hawke in DA2 existed in a very bad middle area between set protagonist and fully customizable open world protagonist. ME1 and ME2's Shepard lacked the freedom of past characters that allowed you to define them, but lacks the set focus of a protagonist that has more structure and definition, like a Geralt or a JC Denton. He was the worst of both worlds, nevermind that he was erratic because you assigned a tone to a philosophy...the same flaw that wrecked Jade Empire as a narrative. This goes back to Drew K and his overratedness as a writer.

[txgoldrush]

o Ventus wrote...

So suddenly discovering a billions year old device that just so happens to be capable of defeating the unbeatable enemy (the exact hour they arrive, no less) isn't contrived?

Do you know what "contrived" means?

Wrong, it was discovered well before ME3 by the dueteragonist of the series, in an appropriate manner that fits her character...its not contrived.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Do tell, what are the main themes of each game?

ME1 is about humanity finding its place in the galaxy...and the end of ME1 establishes humanity's place.

ME2 is about gaining loyalty and trust of your allies to prepare for a task deemed impossible.

ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

That isn't anymore prevalent than certain other themes in the first game.

That's not a theme.

That can't be a theme, because potentially no one sacrifices themselves, and even so, it's not more important than other aspects of the game. 

None of them have main themes, and the series does not have a main theme.

It doesn't have to be more prevelant, it just has to define the work. The nature of ME1 ending and the entire thing was humanity trying to finds its place in the galaxy.

The theme can't define the work if it's not more prevalent than other aspects of it. 

It most definitely is a theme...if you come prepared, you survive, don't prepare, you die. The reason that Shepard will succeed in the suicide mission is because of his crew's focus and his leadership.

That still doesn't make it a theme, what you're describing is part of the premise. 

No one sacrifices themselves in ME3? Are you kidding...wow. And once again, that theme is the definitive one in ALL endings in the EC. The other themes cannot make this case.

Go read what I posted again, except more carefully. There are important words you missed which resulted in you missing the point. 

No, the ending can define a theme....the main conflicts define the themes as well. Pay attention to the beginning of ME1 and its end, you will see that the theme was defining ones place in the galaxy.

No, its the theme of ME2. It manages to be the premise AND the theme.

No, you miss the point...bu tby your logic, if you want to go by prevelance, guess what? Sacrifice is the most prevelant theme in ME3.

You simply do not get theme...yes a work can have many themes, but one theme is always more important than the others. Fans simply cannot let go to the fact that sacrifice is the main theme of ME3, so they accuse the ending of breaking themes.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 21 mars 2013 - 01:02 .