648 réponses à ce sujet

[ZLurps]

Troxa wrote...

...snip...
He could have done that & have most of the characters relevant to the main plot, not 12 different stories
Only found Mordin to be it

& not deviate from the main plot

I recall he was very impressed by new Battlestar Galactica at the time. "It's the characters stupid!" is actually something that also Ronald D. Moore said back when he was lead writer and executive producer of series. Again, if my memory serves.

There was also other things they were investing.

Quoting Drew Karpyshyn.

"For example, Cerberus was never that important in our initial plans – they were just a small, throw-away group of radical humans we could use for some subplots in ME1.

But Cerberus struck a chord with the fans, and when I wrote the second ME novel I decided to dig into the group a little more. TIM was born, fans and the team loved the character, and we just ran with it."

roqoodepot.com/2013/03/20/drew-karpyshyn-reddit-recap/

[Xamufam]

David7204 wrote...

No. You can't. It makes absolutely no difference how long the story is. It makes absolutely no difference if it's a trilogy or not. You've made it clear you have utterly no clue what you're talking about since you think that writing this kind of content is just as easy as following your little list.

yes it is, studied literature & storytelling in school

[David7204]

Obviously it didn't take hold, did it?

[ZLurps]

Something else from the interview I linked in earlier post.

Drew Karpyshyn
"There are a lot of things in ME1 and ME2 that we planted as seeds in case we wanted to build on them later on. However, as the project evolves sometimes you have to go in different directions and you dont’ always get to make those seeds grow."

We have been discussing what could be used from ME1, Scanning the Keepers for example, but what there is in ME2?

Modifié par ZLurps, 31 mars 2013 - 09:15 .

[dani1138]

It would have been a very good idea to foreshadow the eventual solution very early on, but actually discovering what it is and beginning to implement it in the 2nd part of a 3 part story wouldn't really work so well. The 2nd part needs to complicate the story and make the problem seem even more insurmountable, not make things more straightforward and telegraphed. See also: The Empire Strikes Back.

Zlurps,
The Derelict Reaper was a golden opportunity. Imagine what seeds could have been planted there.

Modifié par dani1138, 31 mars 2013 - 09:26 .

[David7204]

Eaxctly. I want the player asking 'How the hell are we going to do this?' at the end of ME 2. Not 'How the hell is this thing going to save us (which we know it will)?'

Also, I really didn't care for derelict Reaper mission much at all. There's a bunch of little problems that I could otherwise ignore, but altogether add up to something I don't like. I think I would have scrapped it and found some other way to introduce the IFF and Legion.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 09:31 .

[ZLurps]

dani1138 wrote...

Zlurps,
The Derelict Reaper was a golden opportunity. Imagine what seeds could have been planted there.

Yeah and if you read what I posted earlier, writers had more content to it but writers were over ruled by someone outside of writing team and it was cut.

But Drew meant there were several things and I can't think but Derelict Reaper either.

[dani1138]

I can't think of too much either. Perhaps the Geth and their Dyson sphere could have offered a new perspective.

[David7204]

It's probably easier to think of a solution and then set the rest of the story to build up to it instead of thinking up foreshadowing to build up to a solution we don't know yet.

[ZLurps]

dani1138 wrote...

I can't think of too much either. Perhaps the Geth and their Dyson sphere could have offered a new perspective.

Dyson sphere of course! I totally forgot that. I recall now how I was thinking that we are probably going to hear from it in ME3.

[David7204]

Well, it's a big power plant. Fragile, too. Not sure how that could have tied into much.

[tevix]

@David

ME1: Discover the problem
ME2: Learn more about the problem, begin to discover clues to it's truer nature, hints at possibilities for a solution. ME2 could have ended with shepard being given information about the discover of the crucible plans. He could even still look out into space and then clip to show to show the entire reaper armada as was done.
ME3: Reapers attack sooner than expected, war, setbacks to the crucible at every turn, consequences of choices, crucible gets built, used, starbrat could still be in with proper foreshadowing from ME2.

What do you say?

Also, you said that a plan going completely according TO play is a spoiler for the rest of the story. Isn't that what we got though, in ME3?

In an old game informer issue when ME3 was early in development CH said that eventually you would come across a reason to believe you had hope, but that much of the game was spent experiencing loss after loss to impress a sense of impossibility and hopelessness.

Instead we got the crucible within 1 hour of the opening and except for the incredibly contrived thessia mission we experienced victory at every turn. The whole game went according to plan and so spoiled itself anyway.

[ZLurps]

Only other thing I can think, I'm not even sure if it was really there, ME Wiki don't mention it but.. I have a memory that there mention of Dragon Tooth's being older design than Derelict Reaper. Then in ME3 we get to hear that Reapers are much older than Derelict Reaper indicated so it didn't went anywhere but if it was there, it sure was odd detail.

Then I have this meme stuck in my head "I heard you like Cerberus so I put more Cerberus in your Cerberus..."

/Bed

[sveners]

David7204 wrote...

Well, it's a big power plant. Fragile, too. Not sure how that could have tied into much.

I think they made a point of saying the Geth would upload their conciousnes..ses? into it. So it would basically become a giant supercomputer of Geth. Something akin to a tech singularity I guess. Or not. 

[sveners]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

It would be useful for the purposes of this conversation to keep in mind that not all imaginative storytelling is "fiction" in the same sense, and doesn't necessarily operate on the same exact level. This has been brought up by several people already, but the key here is the form of Mass Effect, that is not "novelistic" but rather "Epic" in the proper sense of the word. The novel is a particular form of fiction, connected to particular cultural conditions and suitable for particular kinds of inquiry, if you will. It seems that some people here are making the mistake of ascribing the functions of the novel to all storytelling without making any distinctions of genre.

Mass Effect is not properly novelistic in any case, starting with the fact that the variance in the storyline based on player choices necessarily disturbs the kind of unity of presentation that defines a novel. Certain things might or might not be true for a player of Mass Effect. In a novel, every word is in its place and cannot be moved or removed without compromising the authorial intent. An Epic, on the other hand, is not definitionally dependent on every detail playing out in the exact same way on repeated tellings.

Now, the novel form is well suited for some things, such as the examination of individual psychology, arising as it did as a part of the loosening of feudalism and the rise of bourgeois individualism. The Epic, on the other hand, is a form suited for working out issues of foundational mythology, themes that underpin cultural views of the world. Incidentally, this is a part of the reason why Mac Walters imposing his rather insipid psychologisms on Shepard in ME3 feels so intrusive. Wrong genre, dude. Please take a moment to understand what you were put in charge of writing. The player needs to fill in those parts.

So, we have the Epic. The writing of an Epic is the work of mythopoeia, as in that poem Iakus correctly brought up in this connection. It operates on a fundamentally deeper level than the individual psychology in a novel, a level that might not even be readily available to us consciously. It gets us where we dream. That is why the ending of ME3 feels so wrong. It's not supposed to be a lesson in accepting defeat and moral compromise, it is the ground of our dreams. And Mass Effect would now deny us even the dream of successful agency.

What is the value of this craven retreat for us?

Thank you for this!

[David7204]

tevix wrote...

@David

ME1: Discover the problem
ME2: Learn more about the problem, begin to discover clues to it's truer nature, hints at possibilities for a solution. ME2 could have ended with shepard being given information about the discover of the crucible plans. He could even still look out into space and then clip to show to show the entire reaper armada as was done.
ME3: Reapers attack sooner than expected, war, setbacks to the crucible at every turn, consequences of choices, crucible gets built, used, starbrat could still be in with proper foreshadowing from ME2.

What do you say?

Also, you said that a plan going completely according TO play is a spoiler for the rest of the story. Isn't that what we got though, in ME3?

In an old game informer issue when ME3 was early in development CH said that eventually you would come across a reason to believe you had hope, but that much of the game was spent experiencing loss after loss to impress a sense of impossibility and hopelessness.

Instead we got the crucible within 1 hour of the opening and except for the incredibly contrived thessia mission we experienced victory at every turn. The whole game went according to plan and so spoiled itself anyway.

No. You've got to distuinguish between 'victory' and 'things going to plan.' They aren't the same thing at all. Shepard is victorious with the krogan and quarians and whatnot, but the game is constantly, constantly, constantly introducing new challenges and obstacles.

Just a few examples are Cerberus attacking Sur'Kesh, the bomb on Tuchanka, Victus not being able to disarm the bomb, the Reaper at the Shroud, the turian air support being overwhelmed, the Salarians not allowing Wrex to land, the Dalatrass offering Shepard salarian aid for sabotaging the cure, Kalross appearing and chasing Mordin and Wrex, Mordin having to go up the Shroud to release the cure...

All of those are unexpected challenges. All of those things are outside of the plan when Shepard has the war summit. (And that's just for one act.) That's what important. That the story continually introduces new challenges and information. You can't have Shepard simply go pick up Mordin, have him make the cure, and deploy it without anything else happening. Likewise, you can't the galaxy simply finding a superweapon, building it, and deploying it without anything else happening.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 10:10 .

[tevix]

@David

All of those elements could have happened with the crucible being discovered or hinted at by the end of ME2. You can know the plan ahead of time and still have unexpected challenges.

And frankly, all the things you mentioned were speedbumps. All of those scenarios end up in guaranteed success. There's no way to fail any of them (not counting dying). You're presented with what might seem like an impossible obstacle, only to miraculously overcome it at every turn. You can never complete a mission but not have actually succeeded at it bar thessia.

[David7204]

That's different. None of the things I listed concern the Crucible. None of the things I listed concern the ending, which is really where the action needs to happen. The Crucible plotline needs to have things go wrong in the Crucible plotline.

As for those missions being 'unable to fail' from a player's perspective...I don't see how that's relevant. They're 'speedbumps' for you, as a player obviously, since you're not doing any of the work. But they're certainly geniune challenges for Shepard.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 10:22 .

[tevix]

@David

You mentioned earlier that discovering how to destroy the reapers in 2 and then attempting to deploy in 3 wouldn't work because everything can't "go according to plan" or it will spoil the story.

We get the primarch, we succeed with the genophage, after multiple instances of impossible odds. None of that impresses a feeling of desperation or hopelessness.

You said that the game needs to have "How the hell are we going to do this" but after repeated successes against impossible odds in ME3 you stop asking that because you know you'll always win.

[David7204]

No, I said the player should be thinking 'How the hell are we going to do this' at the end of ME 2. I've never said that a tone of desperation or hopelessness is necessary throughout ME 3.

Shepard does not need to personally 'lose' missions for the Reapers to be an intimidating enemy. The sheer effort required to bring down a single Reaper on Tuchanka and Rannoch is intimidating in itself, given that the player knows how many more Reapers are out there. There's plenty of dialogue and cutscenes and other material that make clear how dangerous and effective the Reapers are. If anything, players have been complaining that the tone of ME 3 is too dark.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 10:44 .

[Reorte]

David7204 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's an absolutely garbage plan for more reasons than I care to count.

ME1: Discover the problem
ME2: Work out what the solution is
ME3: Apply the solution

sounds like a perfectly sensible plan.

Despite that plan being childishly simple to the point of complete uselessness, it's actually not very sensible at all.

You can't 'work out' the solution in ME 2 and apply it in ME 3 just like that. Things cannot go according to plan. If they do, the plan becomes a spoiler.

Basic storytelling.

Not to mention that a conventional victory would require at least two solutions. Conventional, and something else.

Firstly, this thread has managed quite well so far without people insulting others just because they don't agree with them. Secondly, that "plan is a spoiler" argument has already been brought up and discarded. The alternative to having a plan is for the Reapers to turn up and everyone running around like headless chickens without the faintest idea about what to do.

As an overall very basic-level structure it's simply common sense. Discover problem, find solution, apply solution is how it goes for, well, just about everything. It doesn't rule out twists and turns and further problems along the way.

[Reorte]

ZLurps wrote...

What would create such tone?

I recall playing some game where in the end it turned out protagonist was fooled from the begin with, and antagonists were used him to track down all possible pockets of resistance. Everyone protagonist knew was killed before he was shot to death or something. It was cyber punk FPS and plot was pretty dark, but I still don't think anyone expected it to end like that.

Even not my main problem with ME3 isn't the ending, it still felt worse than ending of that old cyper punk fps.

I think old RPG, Arcanun had one ending where protagonist and everyone with him/her got stuck in other dimension, but I don't recall for sure if it really was like that. I just have faint memory like there were been some built up for that and that it actually worked. Anyway, IIRC it could be seen as sacrifice of freedom.

I've not played too many other games to be honest but a tone of not epic hero is a starter. One of the few I have played is The Witcher and I expect that things won't end up too brightly in that - from the start it was clear that things were a mess and going downhill.

[David7204]

That plan she posted and that you agreed with was insulting. It's insulting to say that writing a story like this is super-duper easy and anyone who struggles with it is stupid or incompetent.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 11:33 .

[Reorte]

David7204 wrote...

No, I said the player should be thinking 'How the hell are we going to do this' at the end of ME 2.

That's where we should be after the first part of a trilogy. We've encountered something and oops, what the hell are we going to do with it? With some immediate concern it raises tidied up so as to make the first part able to somewhat stand on its own. Your end-of-ME2 position was one of the problems that ME2 left us with ME3 - it left ME3 far too much to do, we've got to be able to somehow work out how to defeat the Reapers, pretty much from scratch, and actually do all the work of defeating them, all in one game.

[Reorte]

David7204 wrote...

That plan she posted was insulting. It's insulting to say that writing a story like this is super-duper easy and anyone who struggles with it is stupid or incompetent.

No it was not. It's merely the most very basic outline from which to build something. You're rejecting the very basic and leaping right in to the deep end -  I could say "This is not about strategy or tactics" for that approach. All those three basic stages need to be there, find problem, find solution, apply solution since simply blundering through making it up as you go along (for both writers and characters) will end in disaster. That neatly splits into a trilogy. From there you can introduce complications, changes, new information and so on which will fragment those three concepts and move bits of them around in the structure but if you take your "plan is a spoiler" argument literally then you end up building something up only to have to completely throw it away and run the story in a totally different direction. Maybe a good writer could pull that off but it should certainly be the exception and not the rule.