1093 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Armass81 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Technically, those can all still happen without the death

Yeah. But I think it adds a nice poignancy to the words, and to their relationship.

Couple of words vs a decently and correctly written plot transition that makes sense...hmmm thats a toughie...

I think id go with the plot.

How is it incorrectly written? I think it makes enough sense. I think it's decent. I don't know where you're getting 'correct' in the mix, but I think it's that too. 

It's much better than synthesis. 

[Armass81]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Technically, those can all still happen without the death

Yeah. But I think it adds a nice poignancy to the words, and to their relationship.

Couple of words vs a decently and correctly written plot transition that makes sense...hmmm thats a toughie...

I think id go with the plot.

How is it incorrectly written? I think it makes enough sense. I think it's decent. I don't know where you're getting 'correct' in the mix, but I think it's that too. 

It's much better than synthesis. 

google something like "when is it ok to kill a protagonist in a story and how should it be done?"

I think its been said here many times too. This is story writing 101. You dont just arbitrarily kill off the protagonist to bring him back. It accomplishes nothing but a time shift which could have been done with a coma, it creates unbelievable elements in the story, it trivializes death itself, it leads to no big reveal or anywhere and isnt pondered upon, just joked about like its not even a big deal.

"its much better that synthesis" well not really IMO, and even if true so what? If its slightly better than some other bad element, it still doesnt make it good or right.

Modifié par Armass81, 14 juillet 2013 - 05:28 .

[Astartes Marine]

Oh ME2 had plenty of flaws, there's no doubt about that.  The thing is, for me at least, that it was so very nicely done in other areas like music, missions, and characters that I could overlook those flaws or at the very least tolerate them...yes even the damned planet scanning.  I very much enjoyed the "Dirty Dozen" styled story as that is a favorite movie of mine.

ME3 was not like this, only a handful of missions were what I would call truly memorable, only a handful of the characters worthy of their space in the game, and...I don't really need to mention how Priority Earth utterly fails to measure up to the Suicide Mission both in results of choices made throughout the game or overall enjoyability. 

And I personally didn't mind the whole Lazarus Project shenanigans or the destruction of the original Normandy, though I am confused as to why the whole "Cerberus conquers death" thing is never really mentioned again...

[MegaSovereign]

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

*snip*
My Shepard considers his death the greatest thing that's ever happened to him.

D'awww

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Armass81 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Technically, those can all still happen without the death

Yeah. But I think it adds a nice poignancy to the words, and to their relationship.

Couple of words vs a decently and correctly written plot transition that makes sense...hmmm thats a toughie...

I think id go with the plot.

How is it incorrectly written? I think it makes enough sense. I think it's decent. I don't know where you're getting 'correct' in the mix, but I think it's that too. 

It's much better than synthesis. 

google something like "when is it ok to kill a protagonist in a story and how should it be done?"

I think its been said here many times too. This is story writing 101. You dont just arbitrarily kill off the protagonist to bring him back. It accomplishes nothing but a time shift which could have been done with a coma, it creates unbelievable elements in the story, it trivializes death itself, it leads to no big reveal or anywhere and isnt pondered upon, just joked about like its not even a big deal.

"its much better that synthesis" well not really IMO, and even if true so what? If its slightly better than some other bad element, it still doesnt make it good or right.

It probably could have been handled better. I think it would have been better to kill him off at the end of ME1, and resurrect him in ME2.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

google something like "when is it ok to kill a protagonist in a story and how should it be done?"

I think its been said here many times too. This is story writing 101. You dont just arbitrarily kill off the protagonist to bring him back. It accomplishes nothing but a time shift which could have been done with a coma, it creates unbelievable elements in the story, it trivializes death itself, it leads to no big reveal or anywhere and isnt pondered upon, just joked about like its not even a big deal.

"its much better that synthesis" well not really IMO, and even if true so what? If its slightly better than some other bad element, it still doesnt make it good or right.

There is no "You don't X."

Writing is about breaking rules just as much as following them.

Now, I'm not defending the whole Lazarus thing--fifteen pages ago several of us were arguing against it with David--but saying "it's objectively bad writing" is nonsense.

So long as it is fluid and cohesive narrative and doesn't create any irreconcilable inconsistencies that break the story. It's explained well enough that I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for it, provided it doesn't completely get trivialized or become too widespread. 

[Armass81]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

google something like "when is it ok to kill a protagonist in a story and how should it be done?"

I think its been said here many times too. This is story writing 101. You dont just arbitrarily kill off the protagonist to bring him back. It accomplishes nothing but a time shift which could have been done with a coma, it creates unbelievable elements in the story, it trivializes death itself, it leads to no big reveal or anywhere and isnt pondered upon, just joked about like its not even a big deal.

"its much better that synthesis" well not really IMO, and even if true so what? If its slightly better than some other bad element, it still doesnt make it good or right.

There is no "You don't X."

Writing is about breaking rules just as much as following them.

Now, I'm not defending the whole Lazarus thing--fifteen pages ago several of us were arguing against it with David--but saying "it's objectively bad writing" is nonsense.

Yes if you like mindless sensationalism thats just happens because theres no "You don't X".

Modifié par Armass81, 14 juillet 2013 - 05:53 .

[dreamgazer]

Where's the line between mindless sensationalism and effective shock-value?

Another subjective viewpoint.

[Armass81]

Just to say there are no rules and anything goes in a certain kind of story is really stupid. There are rules. There are writing classes which teach those rules. Its very important, otherwise your story becomes an incoherent mess where stuff just happens and then handwave. Kinda like ME.

Modifié par Armass81, 14 juillet 2013 - 06:01 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Armass81 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Where's the line between mindless sensationalism and effective shock-value?

Another subjective viewpoint.

If it actually led somewhere, like some big reveal, it would have been passable. if there had been some deeper meanign and pondering, it would have been better. But there isnt any of those things so its garbage.

And other people, myself included, feel differently about this topic. As Dream said, it's subjective. You're not seeing those things, yet I am. I can't explain it, and I can't provide quantitive proof, but it's what I'm seeing from my perspective. Are you telling me that I'm wrong for seeing something that you don't in a subjective work?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 juillet 2013 - 05:59 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Just to say there are no rules and anything in a story goes is really stupid. 

I see you changed your comment. I'll reply to this, then: I'm not saying "anything goes." I'm saying "anything goes that works." Putting a dragon in ME would be stupid, in my opinion, because it doesn't work. That's the question every writer must ask him/herself: does it work or not? It isn't some arbitrary list of rules.

I don't know or think that you'd agree, but that is how I view synthesis. At the absolute least, I think the explanation for it and the thematic reason for its presentation are total crap.

[Armass81]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Just to say there are no rules and anything in a story goes is really stupid. 

I see you changed your comment. I'll reply to this, then: I'm not saying "anything goes." I'm saying "anything goes that works." Putting a dragon in ME would be stupid, in my opinion, because it doesn't work. That's the question every writer must ask him/herself: does it work or not? It isn't some arbitrary list of rules. And the problem with "does it work?" is that it's a subjective question.

"Does it work" is not enough, if its something like a main character death, it has to be executed properly too. Otherwise it becomes fluff, meaningless and is just tossed aside, like in case of Sheps death.

There are also rules in execution. If you execute it wrongly, it becomes bad. ME3 endings proved this point most clearly, so almost everyone could see it. Not everyone can, thats why theres still people that like the original endings. Doesnt mean it wasnt executed badly, as was Shepards death. In shepards death its mostly the execution and aftermath which stinks.

Modifié par Armass81, 14 juillet 2013 - 06:11 .

[Foolsfolly]

AresKeith wrote...

Well I acknowledge the flaws in ME2, but still enjoyed it more over ME3

QFT

[MassivelyEffective0730]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I don't know or think that you'd agree, but that is how I view synthesis. At the absolute least, I think the explanation for it and the thematic reason for its presentation are total crap.

I haven't seen it in-game, but from what little I've gathered of it I'd agree. They did poorly with that. Now, the odd thing is they actually COULD have come up with a quasi-scientific explanation--photons from the beam invade organic molecules, change their structure into something synthetic, something like that--but that would likely require a bit of research to contrive it.

I think the context of its inclusion of Mass Effect was heavily flawed. Then again, the execution is completely hamfisted to be messianic, and rather bluntly religious. To me, I think it's rather obvious that they're trying to evoke a comparison to Christ.

[Armass81]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Does it work is not enough, if its something like a main character death, it has to be executed properly too. otherwise it becomes fluff, meaningless.

There are also rules in execution. If you execute it wrongly, it becomes bad. ME3 endings proved this point most clearly, so almost everyone could see it. Not everyone can, thats why theres still people that like the original endings. Doesnt mean it wanst executed badly, as was Shepards death.

But what is "executed properly?" My point is that there is no definitive "this was executed properly." "This was not executed properly." It's a subjective determination.

There are still rules. Why do you think there are writing schools? Humans have been telling stories for a long time, weve come to be pretty good at it. Thats why certain rules arise how to tell a good story.

Subjective still plays its part, some humans like nonsense or dont dig too deep and just want to be entertained. Thats why horrible movies which play solely on effects and emotions can be so popular.

Modifié par Armass81, 14 juillet 2013 - 06:30 .

[Redbelle]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...



Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

easy. I wouldn't have created a completely new villain. I wouldve kept the focus on the Reapers. I wouldn't have killed off the protagonist for shock value and a clean slate. I would've continued to develop existing squadmates, and added several more recruits (not 10). I wouldn't have completely removed features that fans criticised in ME1. I wouldve refined them.

The Reapers would've invaded halfway through ME2. That way, the war would be drawn out over the course of half the trilogy (1 and half games), instead of trying to cram the entire invasion, war and resolution into a single installment.

Then the question becomes, would going off with a new protag have worked?

People are rather attached to their Shepards. It's one of the things I had to get over with DA. Not having my warden as the lead character and having to invest in a new character.

Continuation of character dynamic was a hook for ME. The idea that this was not just one game but a continuation of the last. It's video gaming that pushes the boat out to try and be a different experience than other games out there.

Even FFXI never had this level of continuation in all it's sequels. Nor DMC, or any other sequel you care to mention. This is a trology that hinges on the continuation of your unique universe built by your actions.

Of course it has to come to an end. Nothing lasts forever. But to throw Shepard out defies the wants and needs of the gamers who want to play their Shepards.

And as for a vrand new villain, that's what we got with the collectors. The Reapers little helpers. The boogiemen behind the boogiemen

Maybe you'd feel better if they'd dropped the line in ME3. "Good thing you wiped out the collectors or we'd be in even more trouble".

or

"If the collectors were still around the Reapers wouldn't be spending as much time making husks to replace their little army you destroyed".

"And that's a good thing"?

"If the options are,, get shot at by the Reaper and Cerberus or those two plus the Collectors I'll choose the one that allows me to stay unflanked on at least one side of the fighting".