1093 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Redbelle wrote...

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?

umm I never said anything about a new protagonist. We would still be playing as Shepard.

[dreamgazer]

Armass81 wrote...

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.

If writers always followed the rules, we'd never experience anything different or revolutionary. That's creative stagnation. 

Not saying anything involved here meets that criteria, but the "follow your writing rules" mantra is bogus. 

Subjective still plays its part, some humans like nonsense. Thats why horrible movies whcih play solely on effects can be so popular.

Or, of course, other people simply think that certain things aren't nonsense.  I've experienced this when discussing the movie Mulholland Drive before. People who don't put their brains into that movie dismiss it as "nonsense" and assume it's garbage, when it's far from it.  

Again, not saying that's the case here, but you really can't stick by such ironclad rules. 

[Redbelle]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

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.

Which is interesting because in my opinion that doesn't fit at all. For Synthesis, I mean. I understand it for the whole series, and for the ending in general--and as a Christian, I kind of like it--but Synthesis doesn't feel like Christ to me.

It's like someone told BW the the story of Christ without explaining the further ramifications or how Christ's death was a plan aimed at acheiving an effect for all time.

Then there's the fact that all throughout the bible God had been trying to find ways to get the ol human race to be a certain way and just never really got the results he wanted.

Then there's the concept that if God really is infinite and all knowing, then he cannot know what it is like to be human, because while he can know what it is like to be human being all knowing and infinite. Humans are not. Hence he could never truely know what being human was like from the point of view of the people.

Alot of the meaning behind the stories of religion gets buried under the event's without knowing what those event's ever meant.

Shep's death was meant to be a simple case of 'Die to save everyone the galaxy'. But came off in it's execution as, 'I can't believe there is no more game and this is the final battle to end the war.......... All I did was survive a SP horde mode and shoot my way past Marauder Shields".

I mean, going out of your way to save the Reapers too? Who thought that was a good idea? It's like watching an episode oh Yo Gi Oh where one card battle later everyone is the bestest of friends despite being bitter enemies who would kick the other's puppy.

[Armass81]

dreamgazer wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

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.

If writers always followed the rules, we'd never experience anything different or revolutionary. That's creative stagnation. 

Not saying anything involved here meets that criteria, but the "follow your writing rules" mantra is bogus. 

Im not saying you should slavishly follow them. They are good guidelines still.

Modifié par Armass81, 14 juillet 2013 - 06:40 .

[dreamgazer]

Armass81 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

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.

If writers always followed the rules, we'd never experience anything different or revolutionary. That's creative stagnation. 

Not saying anything involved here meets that criteria, but the "follow your writing rules" mantra is bogus. 

They are good guidelines still, which do not fail.

Sure, they do.  Formulaic stories fail all the time. 

[Mcfly616]

Armass81 wrote...

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.

sounds like George R R Martin/Game of Thrones to me....just killing people off to be "unpredictable" (his words....not mine). That's just the laziest thing I've ever heard. But hey, he seems to be pretty successful nowadays.

And Shepards death was fine. If anybody played the first two games and didn't think that Shepard would probably end up paying the ultimate price in order to defeat the Reapers and save the galaxy.....well, I'm not sure what those people were playing. The guy had "savior" written all over him from the jump. Just a whole bunch of messianic tropes.

[KaiserShep]

Kinda glad that the destroy epilogue kind of skips over that messianic sacrifice bit. This ain't the Matrix Revolutions. Too bad the stargazer is there no matter what.

[Zazzerka]

Mcfly616 wrote...

And Shepards death was fine. If anybody played the first two games and didn't think that Shepard would probably end up paying the ultimate price in order to defeat the Reapers and save the galaxy.....well, I'm not sure what those people were playing.

I was playing Mass Effect 1 & 2, same as you, and I was pretty certain that ME3's ending was going to follow suit - there'd be a fight, some dramatic music, some tension, and then I'd win and go make a sandwich. Obviously, it caught me a little off guard.

It broke the pattern, smashed it to bits, really, but I was supposed to see that coming a mile away? I must be a real dumbarse.

Modifié par Zazzerka, 14 juillet 2013 - 06:46 .

[Mcfly616]

KaiserShep wrote...

Kinda glad that the destroy epilogue kind of skips over that messianic sacrifice bit. This ain't the Matrix Revolutions. Too bad the stargazer is there no matter what.

I like the stargazer. But I'm definitely glad they didnt get all "literal" with the Jesus thing like Matrix Revolutions. (Neo with a glowing cross and crap). That movie was just garbage from top to bottom. There are no Matrix sequels. To me, there is only "The Matrix".

Modifié par Mcfly616, 14 juillet 2013 - 06:52 .

[Redbelle]

Armass81 wrote...

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.

Writing schools are where you hone your craft in the presence of other writers and develop an idea of what is and is not acceptable in the realms of writing.

There are things that it is generally best to just never do.

That said, in the hands of someone with an idea as to how to bring off a proper execution,  something deemed as to hard to write for can be done.

It's also true of music. There are things in music you simply don't do like hit two key's next to each other. But if the music has to convey a sense of something is wrong to a scene on a TV screen then I've heard this harmonic disresonance used several times while someone scrapes a violin string and all but claws a chalk board.

The rules of creation exist for a reason. Follow them and you'll end up with a good result. Break them without reason and you'll end up with a mess.But, break them to acheive an effect in context with the reason why you are breaking them and you'll end up with something amazing.

Case in point. John Williams score, the attack of the clones. At the very end where the viewer sees a montage of what is happening across the Galaxy the score shift's and keeps shifting. It's as if the score's of music are fighting for dominance. All of which begins after the words, "Begun, the clone wars have".

[Redbelle]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

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?

umm I never said anything about a new protagonist. We would still be playing as Shepard.

My Bad, I've have'nt had coffee this morning. In fact! To the Kettle!

[Mcfly616]

Zazzerka wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

And Shepards death was fine. If anybody played the first two games and didn't think that Shepard would probably end up paying the ultimate price in order to defeat the Reapers and save the galaxy.....well, I'm not sure what those people were playing.

I was playing Mass Effect 1 & 2, same as you, and I was pretty certain that ME3's ending was going to follow suit - there'd be a fight, some dramatic music, some tension, and then I'd win and go make a sandwich. Obviously, it caught me a little off guard.

It broke the pattern, smashed it to bits, really, but I was supposed to see that coming a mile away? I must be a real dumbarse.

well, if he sacrificed himself in 1 or 2 we wouldnt have a trilogy like Bioware promised us, would we? Broke a pattern? Like what? Surviving? Hmm....I guess every sacrifice that didn't happen "sooner", broke some sort of pattern of living.


I mean, man, that Jesus guy.....escaped persecution a few times before he totally broke the pattern and got himself crucified.

[Mcfly616]

Redbelle wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

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?

umm I never said anything about a new protagonist. We would still be playing as Shepard.

My Bad, I've have'nt had coffee this morning. In fact! To the Kettle!

no biggie. It's understandable

[Zazzerka]

Mcfly616 wrote...

 well, if he sacrificed himself in 1 or 2 we wouldnt have a trilogy like Bioware promised us, would we?

I also didn't really follow the development that closely, on BSN or otherwise. That was limited to the occasional article in an Xbox magazine. I didn't know much about what BioWare had "promised."

Mcfly616 wrote...

Broke a pattern? Like what? Surviving? Hmm....I guess every sacrifice that didn't happen "sooner", broke some sort of pattern of living.

I mean, man, that Jesus guy.....escaped persecution a few times before he totally broke the pattern and got himself crucified.

Don't get catty. There was a boss fight, a moment where we think Shepard's dead, and a moment where we realise he isn't. In both games. I'd call that a pattern, yeah. "People live before they die" isn't an argument against that.

Modifié par Zazzerka, 14 juillet 2013 - 07:07 .

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Also, at the Jesus stuff..

This is lame. Jesus was a pacifist and rabbi. A spiritual teacher. Not a fricken space marine. There's no reason to mix these things up. It's like saying Martin Luther King Jr. and Chris Kyle are the same.

a lot of fictional heroes were inspired by, or draw parallels with Jesus. I'm not saying I like it, or thag I even believe in the crap. But its a fact nonetheless.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

Oh boy. What 'silly plot solvers' are in ME 1 and ME 2? And what 'space magic'?

The Thorian, for one.

[o Ventus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Sure, they do.  Formulaic stories fail all the time. 

1. Star Wars
2. Lord of the Rings

[Mcfly616]

Zazzerka wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Like what? Surviving? Hmm....I guess every sacrifice that didn't happen "sooner", broke some sort of pattern of living.

I mean, man, that Jesus guy.....escaped persecution a few times before he totally broke the pattern and got himself crucified.

Don't get catty. There was a boss fight, a moment where we think Shepard's dead, and a moment where we realise he isn't. In both games. I'd call that a pattern, yeah. "People live before they die" isn't an argument against that.

And as I said, those were the first two games of a planned trilogy. Obviously he wasn't going to die at the end of those games because they had a final installment to do. So, yeah.....when a trilogy is planned, the protagonist has to "live" through the games before he can die. That's just common sense.

Nobody is going to announce a trilogy, and then have the protagonist die in the first game. Obviously if your main character is going to die, the most likely and appropriate time would be at the end of the whole thing, no?

[o Ventus]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Ridiculous. Skydivers have fallen from terminal velocity all the time. Some of them have even survived. Do they leave a 'gorey mess'? No.

So much facepalm from this post


Apparently you didn't notice that Shepard started to burn while falling to the planet

Shepard's armor is heat resistant, both the hard layer on top and the soft mesh underneath. You see that his armor is also intact by LotSB. It's not entirely beyond belief that Shepard's armor heated up, but didn't melt.

What does this have to do with a "gory mess"?

[o Ventus]

As an aside, how was Shepard's death at the end of 3 foreshadowed AT ALL in 1 and 2?

Modifié par o Ventus, 14 juillet 2013 - 07:14 .

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Also, at the Jesus stuff..

This is lame. Jesus was a pacifist and rabbi. A spiritual teacher. Not a fricken space marine. There's no reason to mix these things up. It's like saying Martin Luther King Jr. and Chris Kyle are the same.

a lot of fictional heroes were inspired by, or draw parallels with Jesus. I'm not saying I like it, or thag I even believe in the crap. But its a fact nonetheless.

I find a stark difference between a pacifist's sacrifice and a soldier's sacrifice. The only commonality is sacrifice, but the latter is always going out gun's blazing. Trying to mix the two is retarded. Not clever. I don't care who tries it. The Matrix tried it too -- thought it sucked. Neo was cooler at the end of the first Matrix.

okay....and that still doesnt change the fact that countless writers throughout history (and even today) have made their protagonists into messianic type figures. I don't like it all the time either.

And as I said earlier, the first Matrix is the only Matrix to me. Those sequels never happened.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

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.

Which is interesting because in my opinion that doesn't fit at all. For Synthesis, I mean. I understand it for the whole series, and for the ending in general--and as a Christian, I kind of like it--but Synthesis doesn't feel like Christ to me.

I agree on the last part, forcing a change on people doesn't really fit his M.O.

Well it fits the older material (old testiment) but that stuff is just plain depressing...

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 14 juillet 2013 - 07:24 .