38 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcian]

ME2's writing wasn't that much better than ME3's. The difference between the two is that ME2's narrative design respects the developer-player pact, and ME3's doesn't.

I'll let Armando Troisi explain:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

[AresKeith]

Arcian wrote...

ME2's writing wasn't that much better than ME3's. The difference between the two is that ME2's narrative design respects the developer-player pact, and ME3's doesn't.

I'll let Armando Troisi explain:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

That man knows how to do it

[Sanunes]

Yeah, but wasn't there a lot of complaints about the Halo 4 story which he worked on?

[Arcian]

Sanunes wrote...

Yeah, but wasn't there a lot of complaints about the Halo 4 story which he worked on?

Not to my knowledge. The only people I've heard complain about Halo 4 are Bungie fanboys.

[PHGDAL]

What? Halo 4's story was quite good. I very much enjoyed it. Besides, Halo 4 is a FPS, and I'm pretty sure the agreement he is talking about is only for Mass Effect-Styled RPGs.

But yes, this guy has a great point. What happened to ME3? ME3 goes against the agreement he mentions since the start of the game. I still liked the beginning and middle of the game, but it could have been so much better.

I hated that in ME3 most of the interactions I had with my squadmates were just conversations without the dialogue wheel coming up. The thing I hated most about the Citadel DLC too...

[masleslie]

Since I don't have time to watch nearly an hour of you tube clips would someone (OP?) like to summarize what this is getting at?

Most of us are agreed that the writing of ME1 was better than the rest of the trilogy. However, in retrospect ME2 doesn't fare so well. Whatever peoples problems with the ending, at least ME3 was a single narrative which flowed. ME2 became too disjointed, more like a collection of short stories than a single narrative. As a result it lacked focus & talking to friends with PS3's who dropped into the series there, they found it failed to hold their attention as a result.

[satunnainen]

The links seem to have some (ex?) bioware developers presentation about me2 (narrative?). How will they prove the op:s claim that the me3 main problem is narrative I have no idea.

Modifié par satunnainen, 07 juin 2013 - 02:08 .

[Fixers0]

satunnainen wrote...

The links seem to have some (ex?) bioware developers presentation about me2 (narrative?). How will they prove the op:s claim that the me3 main problem is narrative I have no idea.

No the video's are a presantion by a former cinematic designer explaining the rules and methods they used to created the interactive narrative experiance in ME1&2, basically it comes down how they've used a system of rules called the agreement  in order to implement choices, dialogue options and interupts in order to provide the player with most immersionfull and personal narrative experiance.

When watching the video and then comparing it to the Mass Effect games you can pretty much instantly discover that ME1& ME2 mostly hold onto this set of rules where as Mass Effect 3 quite frequantly breaks the agreement.

[satunnainen]

Fixers0 wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

The links seem to have some (ex?) bioware developers presentation about me2 (narrative?). How will they prove the op:s claim that the me3 main problem is narrative I have no idea.

No the video's are a presantion by a former cinematic designer explaining the rules and methods they used to created the interactive narrative experiance in ME1&2, basically it comes down how they've used a system of rules called the agreement  in order to implement choices, dialogue options and interupts in order to provide the player with most immersionfull and personal narrative experiance.

When watching the video and then comparing it to the Mass Effect games you can pretty much instantly discover that ME1& ME2 mostly hold onto this set of rules where as Mass Effect 3 quite frequantly breaks the agreement.

It would be nice if we had a short explanation what this set of little rules is and where (for example) me3 breaks it so we could be a bit wiser afterwards, but this thread seems to be in wrong area for that. So I guess people just have to believe you. Or not.

Personally I am too lazy to watch for an hour long video just to see if someone has a point or not

[AlanC9]

Threads based on a video argument usually don't go anywhere. But at least this one isn't linking to smudboy.....

[RZIBARA]

Arcian wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Yeah, but wasn't there a lot of complaints about the Halo 4 story which he worked on?

Not to my knowledge. The only people I've heard complain about Halo 4 are Bungie fanboys.

Halo 4 did a terrible job on the antagonist. The Didact's motives are never explained well, and he never even mentions his name, so it makes no sense as into how Chief and Cortana know his name at all.

Also, it doesnt help that you only see him twice in the entire game, when he was supposed to have a MAJOR role in Halo 4. and the final confrontation with ends in a very dissappointing way as well.

Alot of the character shouldnt even be considered characters in the main campaign. Palmer gets what, like 4 lines all together? Lasky doesnt get that many either. 

Modifié par RZIBARA, 07 juin 2013 - 05:57 .

[Fixers0]

satunnainen wrote...

It would be nice if we had a short explanation what this set of little rules is and where (for example) me3 breaks it so we could be a bit wiser afterwards, but this thread seems to be in wrong area for that. So I guess people just have to believe you. Or not.

Personally I am too lazy to watch for an hour long video just to see if someone has a point or not

Well, yeah, the videos do a much better job at explaining then i ever will. So if you just want to understand the basics I just suggest you see video 2, which is only eleven minutes long anyways.

[Arcian]

RZIBARA wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Yeah, but wasn't there a lot of complaints about the Halo 4 story which he worked on?

Not to my knowledge. The only people I've heard complain about Halo 4 are Bungie fanboys.

Halo 4 did a terrible job on the antagonist. The Didact's motives are never explained well, and he never even mentions his name, so it makes no sense as into how Chief and Cortana know his name at all.

The Didact's title and name (it is both) is mentioned repeatedly by Storm Covenant forces over their battlenet (which Cortana can tap into and monitor). That's how she learns his name.

As for his motives, those are explained in the terminals. Having long, mandatory exposition sequences would break the developer-player pact in Halo 4, which is to provide the player with high-paced and sparsely interrupted shooter action.

[PHGDAL]

Mass Effect should also have allowed us to purchase in-game footage of stuff. I've always wanted to watch Fleet and Flotilla!

[Sanunes]

Arcian wrote...

-snip-

The Didact's title and name (it is both) is mentioned repeatedly by Storm Covenant forces over their battlenet (which Cortana can tap into and monitor). That's how she learns his name.

As for his motives, those are explained in the terminals. Having long, mandatory exposition sequences would break the developer-player pact in Halo 4, which is to provide the player with high-paced and sparsely interrupted shooter action.

This to me means the pact is subjective to both sides, for I expect a game to give me enough information to fully understand what is going on and if I have to read a lot of text logs to understand what is going on it would have broken the pact for Halo 4 that you describe for it would kill the pace of the game and interrupted my gameplay as I try and read log files to get a full understanding of the situation and players.

[Iakus]

ME3's biggest problem was, in a choice-based rpg, they stuck the player with a Kobyashi Maru scenario at the very end. Then wondered why people got upset.

[Mr.House]

You really expect the ME team to learn after ME2 and ME3? ME series is all about shooting, explosions, characters and waifu sex now. Narrative, coherent plot and good story telling left when robo Saren was shown.

Modifié par Mr.House, 09 juin 2013 - 05:14 .

[WoolyJoe]

Arcian wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Yeah, but wasn't there a lot of complaints about the Halo 4 story which he worked on?

Not to my knowledge. The only people I've heard complain about Halo 4 are Bungie fanboys.

Irony?

[Arcian]

WoolyJoe wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Yeah, but wasn't there a lot of complaints about the Halo 4 story which he worked on?

Not to my knowledge. The only people I've heard complain about Halo 4 are Bungie fanboys.

Irony?

Not sure if it's that ironic, but the complaints I have heard have literally amounted to "Bungie didn't make it, therefore it sucks", even though something like half of 343i are former Bungie employees.

[Nikkonito]

iakus wrote...

ME3's biggest problem was, in a choice-based rpg, they stuck the player with a Kobyashi Maru scenario at the very end. Then wondered why people got upset.

They gave us that on Virmire, too, the problem was, a lot of people were happy to leave one of the party members behind to die.

[Nikkonito]

Arcian wrote...

ME2's writing wasn't that much better than ME3's. The difference between the two is that ME2's narrative design respects the developer-player pact, and ME3's doesn't.

I'll let Armando Troisi explain:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

So where and how do you think the covenant was broken?

[chemiclord]

ME3's biggest problem is that there is very little logical flow to its ending sequence. The Catalyst (before DLC corrected it) gets about two lines of throwaway foreshadowing before it dumps a moral conundrum on you, the final scenes (even with the extended cut) are a disjointed mess. In the effort to not step on anyone's headcanon, it leaves the player with the most barebones frame of reference and says, "End the story however you want!"

The developer-player pact is a load of entitled bull****. There is no pact. The developer gives you a game to play. You either like it or you don't. If you do, you buy more of the developer's crap. If you don't like it, you don't buy more of their crap.

It's a pretty simple exchange. Players who try to claim there's more than that are fooling themselves.

[Fixers0]

Nikkonito wrote...

So where and how do you think the covenant was broken?

At every instance I wanted to make a dialogue options that isn't present on the wheel.

[chemiclord]

Fixers0 wrote...

Nikkonito wrote...

So where and how do you think the covenant was broken?

At every instance I wanted to make a dialogue options that isn't present on the wheel.

So... you hated all three games then?  Because I can think of a lot of things I would have liked to say from ME1 on that I never had the option to say.

[KaiserShep]

chemiclord wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Nikkonito wrote...

So where and how do you think the covenant was broken?

At every instance I wanted to make a dialogue options that isn't present on the wheel.

So... you hated all three games then?  Because I can think of a lot of things I would have liked to say from ME1 on that I never had the option to say.

To a degree, I imagine this is true for everyone in all three games. The problem is, perfectly logical jumps in a conversation become scarce or nonexistent at this point. It's clear that you are being guided too strictly in a certain direction, because any modicum of common sense is being tossed out to accept a certain premise. The final conversation broke Shepard out of character and threw away past experiences in order to accomplish this. At least in the other games, things you may have wanted to say might not be there, but there were fair enough options to work with. In the ending, however, it was totally screwed. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 juin 2013 - 10:55 .