364 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...
ME1's was in the mold. ME2's ending was out of the mold when it introduced variable end outcomes that relied on multiple decision's made throughout the game to have an end effect on how the variable sliding outcome of the suicide mission,

Oh, that's what you meant by mold.

OK. But ME2 did that by only having trivial consequences for the endgame. Whether someone lives or dies does not matter. All you lose is a post-ending short convo and the opportunity to do someone's LM if you haven't already.

[Redbelle]

The matter of someone dying is incredibly important.

Take Tali for example.

Writing for Tali means talking about her exile and the first day they met with the Geth data running from the Shadow Broker and talking about Liara now being the Shadow Broker etc etc.

If Tali is dead however from ME2. Then admiral standin takes over and all her dialogue have fewer common points of reference. It's a completely different character who isan't Tali.

She can go through the same motion's as Tali, but can't invoke the same spirit as she doesn't have Tali's shared background.

That's why ME2 was so good. It had consequences and implied consequences. Some of which like, being dead, was one they couldn't ignore.

Shame about the Reaper base though.

[Clayless]

Redbelle wrote...

The matter of someone dying is incredibly important.

Take Tali for example.

Writing for Tali means talking about her exile and the first day they met with the Geth data running from the Shadow Broker and talking about Liara now being the Shadow Broker etc etc.

If Tali is dead however from ME2. Then admiral standin takes over and all her dialogue have fewer common points of reference. It's a completely different character who isan't Tali.

She can go through the same motion's as Tali, but can't invoke the same spirit as she doesn't have Tali's shared background.

That's why ME2 was so good. It had consequences and implied consequences. Some of which like, being dead, was one they couldn't ignore.

Shame about the Reaper base though.

It's generally viewed around these parts that ME2 is about where 90% of the series' problems lie.

The "everyone can die" ending severely restriced the story, and the decision to be able to destroy the plot of the game also restricted the story dramatically. While I love ME2, they really should have saved the suicide mission for ME3, and not allowed the choice to destroy the entire plot because you "wont let fear compromise who I am".

Modifié par Robosexual, 29 juillet 2013 - 06:44 .

[Redbelle]

I'd then argue that with enough time, they could have written these parts and made them stick.

Sadly, I think, and this is based solely on a feeling I get playing through and having seen other movies/games rushed out to hit a deadline.

I think BW need to learn to step back from just pumping out another release, and taking the time neccessary to craft it.

The problem with releasing games is that once they are out there. There gone out of the developers total control to manipulate.

The last 2 BW games I played had one bug between them that stopped all progress and forced me to reset. Taht bug being DA2's despawn bodies for MP which despawned loot items and took away a mission critical item from existence.

And ME3's cockpit where Joker had laid a superglue trap. Leading Shepard to be permantly stuck there.

That's not dialogue related, but in a way it is.

If BW had given time to playtest their products, then the extra time could also have allowed the writing staff to look at their work and make edits when and where neccessary.

I'll wager that no writer at BW ever sit's down to write something and that it enter's the game without being editted in some way. No writer I know of does not adjust what they wrote to a degree after it's been written. But this takes time. And when I look at ME3's ending. In the dialogue I hear a raw first draft piece of writing that could have been streamlined. And expanded to cover other variables.

By the end game there is literally no reason not to have Krogan and Rachni and Asari gunship's and every asset you've collected fighting the war alongside Shepard. Just as there is no reason not to have squadmates with Shepard to provide alternative POV's on the Catlyst.

All these were cut due, I think, largely to time constraint's. Not because of something ME2 did.

[Redbelle]

Robosexual wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

The matter of someone dying is incredibly important.

Take Tali for example.

Writing for Tali means talking about her exile and the first day they met with the Geth data running from the Shadow Broker and talking about Liara now being the Shadow Broker etc etc.

If Tali is dead however from ME2. Then admiral standin takes over and all her dialogue have fewer common points of reference. It's a completely different character who isan't Tali.

She can go through the same motion's as Tali, but can't invoke the same spirit as she doesn't have Tali's shared background.

That's why ME2 was so good. It had consequences and implied consequences. Some of which like, being dead, was one they couldn't ignore.

Shame about the Reaper base though.

It's generally viewed around these parts that ME2 is about where 90% of the series' problems lie.

The "everyone can die" ending severely restriced the story, and the decision to be able to destroy the plot of the game also restricted the story dramatically. While I love ME2, they really should have saved the suicide mission for ME3, and not allowed the choice to destroy the entire plot because you "wont let fear compromise who I am".

I think the problem stems from a larger issue.

Not developing side characters to the point where they could take over from a main character.

I mean, Admiral whatsirsname did what to raise herself above the bar?

Meanwhile, BW have other characters like a certain "Hold the Line" Salrian who made an impact.

Characters make an impact based on the efforts poured into them.

But I agree on one point. They ought to have thought the consequences of the ME2 suicide mission through more as it would pertain to ME3.

I don't agree that ME2 should not have had a suicide mission because it was brilliant!

Instead ,BW should have committed to making an ME3 end game that could be as good as, if not, be better than ME2's suicide misison and DA:O's darkspawn invaision where you select which soldier's and class of people you want to fight beside after going to the trouble of gaining their support.

[in it for the lolz]

@OP
If really want to like the ending to ME3, then I have got a song for you:
 

Enjoy!

[o Ventus]

Robosexual wrote...

It's generally viewed around these parts that ME2 is about where 90% of the series' problems lie.

If by "generally viewed" you mean "by a small number of people", and by "90%" you really mean "a number I pulled out of my ass to sound authoritative", then sure.

[Clayless]

o Ventus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

It's generally viewed around these parts that ME2 is about where 90% of the series' problems lie.

If by "generally viewed" you mean "by a small number of people", and by "90%" you really mean "a number I pulled out of my ass to sound authoritative", then sure.

Feel free to cite a problem not caused by ME2, or continue to randomly criticise but ultimately say nothing, it's up to you.

[Clayless]

Even dark energy wasn't built up as much as Organics vs Synthetics, seeing as though is only slightly alluded to in one optional mission. It's unlikely that ME2 was there to set up dark energy because of that.

[Clayless]

That wouldn't really make much sense, as a lot of Harbingers complaints (not enough Drell, sterilised Krogan, Turians are too, uh, primitive) can easily be solved by the Reapers clear cloning abilities or ability to remove the genophage, and the Turian one seems to be about their culture, it's like Harbinger couldn't think of any reason so just made something up for them.

Drell and Krogan biotics seem to be more powerful than human, well Krogan especially, so if they needed a biotic species that aren't the Asari then it seems rather stupid that they'd go for second or third best.

[dan155]

Greylycantrope wrote...


And that’s when I realized why the Endings hurt, why they still do now, and why people hate/hated them so much.

People never hated the endings because of the bad writing or the plot holes. They hated it because of how it made them feel. That’s why people still hate the endings now, and why some will never forgive Bioware. Because
they took that away from you. Because of that feeling...

As you  walk toward and begin shooting that tube and An End Once And For All begins to play and you get the flashbacks of your closest friends... you're forced to destroy this unique, beautiful and personal universe,
and say goodbye in the worst possible way to all those people whom you developed this special bond with, you feel as if everything you’ve ever loved is slipping away, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Like sand sifting through tightly clenched fists."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I can't say I agree with this stance entirely. While I certainly don't enjoy how the end made me feel (and it is one of the main reasons I don't like it) I still find my bigger gripes to be the confused plot and hamfisted resolution. My fellow haters, what's you take on this?

I've been saying something similar for a while, people who hate the endings are somewhere on a spectrum of hating the endings because they thought it was poor writing and hating the endings because they made the player feel sad.  Some people are inbetween, but most people who hate the endings seem to broadly fall into one of the two catagories.  

Personally I thought the endings were okay, not great but not terrible, I found the endings bittersweet and I'm okay with that, I knew there would be a price I would have to pay to defeat the Reapers.  

[Clayless]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm guessing the "primitive" comment about Turians is about their inferior development in biotics. There's very few, and the ones that demonstrate biotics are somewhat ostracized and put in the Cabals (we finally see one in Nyreen, but she abandoned the military and found her own way).

The Drell might be powerful, but their numbers were next to nothing. Harbinger comments on them being promising, but low population. And he comments on the Asari being too dependent on other species for reproduction. For whatever reasons, it's a genetic drawback/weakness in his eyes.

Still doesn't make sense, they could just clone or breed more, and the Asari's ability to breed with aliens is actually a MASSIVE strength, as it effectively means only one Asari can create an entire race with no fear of inbreeding.

Basically, wanting to stop dark energy from destroying the universe by speeding up the destruction of the universe on the slim chance they'll find a race which isn't as good as other races but is apparently better, because mumblesomething, so they can then harvest that race and somehow stop the eventuality that they've been helping to happen for billions of years, but only in this one galaxy which is ultimately pointless in the grand scale of the universe, isn't a better story. Frankly it doesn't even make sense.

[Bleachrude]

I think the "genetic variabilitiy" angle of humanity got dropped in ME3 because someone actually told them...

"Er, you guys DO realize that humans are one of the least genetically diverse species on the planet right?"

Humanity was literally down to 10k-20k after an asteroid hit the planet and caused an extinction event...we are VERY, VERY lucky but even the quarians, unless they too had such an event in their ancient past, should be more genetically diverse than humans....

[Clayless]

If they were after biotics they could use the Geth, or even better, themselves, seeing as though they're perfectly capable of manipulating mass effect fields and machines are better than organics.

As you can see the whole dark energy plot was badly foreshadowed (vaguely implied in an optional mission in the second game) and doesn't make any sense.

[Clayless]

That's as bad as the "Too primitive" or "Not enough" excuses. It's like Harbinger doesn't even really understand what he's saying, he's just trying to think of an insult quickly and spouts the first thing that comes to his head. And Drew's mind doesn't overide previously established canon, seeing as though machines are perfectly capable of manipulating mass effect fields. We even see those flying Geth in ME1, so if he wanted to say they were incapable of it he'd have to retcon like the entire universe.

[KaiserShep]

The geth employed flying turrets in ME1 and 2. They came in waves when doing Tali's recruitment mission on Haestrom.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 29 juillet 2013 - 02:52 .

[chemiclord]

Bleachrude wrote...

I think the "genetic variabilitiy" angle of humanity got dropped in ME3 because someone actually told them...

"Er, you guys DO realize that humans are one of the least genetically diverse species on the planet right?"

Humanity was literally down to 10k-20k after an asteroid hit the planet and caused an extinction event...we are VERY, VERY lucky but even the quarians, unless they too had such an event in their ancient past, should be more genetically diverse than humans....

I believe it was a volcano, not a celestial body, that caused the Toba catastrophe... if we are referring to the same incident, at least.

But yes... humanity at this point isn't terribly diverse in a genetic sense.