299 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

shingara wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

I think he meant it was Drew that created the invincible space god antagonists. 

 thats a tad out of context, drew had an idea that shepard becomes a cyborg within 2 as a bridge between synthetics and organics, there was some concept art showing a version of shep as a cyborg but it was never implimented, they expanded that idea to radical levels by using it as an option for synthesis.

Drew created the Reapers, shingara.  That's the hole that was dug. 

Not really because it worked in ME1.  It isn't like you can't make that story.  You simply need to pay attention to what you are doing when you do.

Bad ending is bad, because of bad work done later.  Not because space reapers were powerful.

They aren't either trait on this list:

Invincible
Gods

Because Sovereign is defeated.

Again, you just need to do the job well.  And that has been done innumerable times in decent stories, at least.  Again, ME3 was supposed to be an RPG, but if you are taking away choice, which is why people are playing it, by the way, you better make sure your story is good.

[dreamgazer]

shingara wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

shingara wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

I think he meant it was Drew that created the invincible space god antagonists. 

 thats a tad out of context, drew had an idea that shepard becomes a cyborg within 2 as a bridge between synthetics and organics, there was some concept art showing a version of shep as a cyborg but it was never implimented, they expanded that idea to radical levels by using it as an option for synthesis.

Drew created the Reapers, shingara.  That's the hole that was dug. 

 Are you for real right now, the entire series is everything vs the reapers, the reapers are not indestructable or godlike in any sense, they are just more evolved.

 But ill tell you what, go ahead and remove reapers from the game and what do you have exactly ? no seriously tell me how reapers are a plot hole in mass effect, a series based upon reapers vs everything.

"Digging a hole for yourself" is a phrase.

It means to create a very, very difficult situation for yourself, not a plot hole.

[CronoDragoon]

shingara wrote...
 Are you for real right now, the entire series is everything vs the reapers, the reapers are not indestructable or godlike in any sense, they are just more evolved.

 But ill tell you what, go ahead and remove reapers from the game and what do you have exactly ? no seriously tell me how reapers are a plot hole in mass effect, a series based upon reapers vs everything.

You'll get a series with TIM and Cerberus as the main antagonists, with the thematic focus being on the viability of cooperation with other "peoples" when you have your own people to look out for.

So, what ended up being the heart of Mass Effect anyway.

In fact my prediction is that ME4 is largely about escalating tension between Council races, leading to the possibility of a galactic war threatening to break intergalactic politics apart, and you have to stop it. (Edit: OR LET IT HAPPEN HAHAHA)

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 octobre 2013 - 04:54 .

[shingara]

dreamgazer wrote...

shingara wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

shingara wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

I think he meant it was Drew that created the invincible space god antagonists. 

 thats a tad out of context, drew had an idea that shepard becomes a cyborg within 2 as a bridge between synthetics and organics, there was some concept art showing a version of shep as a cyborg but it was never implimented, they expanded that idea to radical levels by using it as an option for synthesis.

Drew created the Reapers, shingara.  That's the hole that was dug. 

 Are you for real right now, the entire series is everything vs the reapers, the reapers are not indestructable or godlike in any sense, they are just more evolved.

 But ill tell you what, go ahead and remove reapers from the game and what do you have exactly ? no seriously tell me how reapers are a plot hole in mass effect, a series based upon reapers vs everything.

"Digging a hole for yourself" is a phrase.

It means to create a very, very difficult situation for yourself, not a plot hole.

I think that phrase is something you are doing for yourself right now. Im wondering do you understand the concept of evolution of arms, its exactly the same as an army with guns going up against an army with bows and arrows.  the reapers of which you still have not explained how the reapers are a hole that has been fallen into exists.

 But please i will give you another chance to explain how the reapers are a hole to fall into.

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

shingara wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

shingara wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

I think he meant it was Drew that created the invincible space god antagonists. 

 thats a tad out of context, drew had an idea that shepard becomes a cyborg within 2 as a bridge between synthetics and organics, there was some concept art showing a version of shep as a cyborg but it was never implimented, they expanded that idea to radical levels by using it as an option for synthesis.

Drew created the Reapers, shingara.  That's the hole that was dug. 

 Are you for real right now, the entire series is everything vs the reapers, the reapers are not indestructable or godlike in any sense, they are just more evolved.

 But ill tell you what, go ahead and remove reapers from the game and what do you have exactly ? no seriously tell me how reapers are a plot hole in mass effect, a series based upon reapers vs everything.

"Digging a hole for yourself" is a phrase.

It means to create a very, very difficult situation for yourself, not a plot hole.

Okay, I can agree with that.  Here, right, if you say there are like 20,000 Sovereigns out there, you now have to come up with some pretty intricate stuff about how they get defeated.  Of course, your story is that these have been around for a beyond the pale period of time so 20,000 of them explains why they are.

But yeah, we're talking some large numbers here in relationship to the scale of the species of ME3, so you now need some over the top reason that the Reapers can be defeated.

A space wand, though, was not the way to go, imo   It didn't have to be conventional.  It didn't have to be a boss fight.  It didn't have to even make total technological sense,...just enough to matter.  But it did have to offer you a choice of merit and not come back and bite its own tale from the logic of the story perspective.

[shingara]

CronoDragoon wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Are you for real right now, the entire series is everything vs the reapers, the reapers are not indestructable or godlike in any sense, they are just more evolved.

 But ill tell you what, go ahead and remove reapers from the game and what do you have exactly ? no seriously tell me how reapers are a plot hole in mass effect, a series based upon reapers vs everything.

You'll get a series with TIM and Cerberus as the main antagonists, with the thematic focus being on the viability of cooperation with other "peoples" when you have your own people to look out for.

So, what ended up being the heart of Mass Effect anyway.

 so you want mass effect to be deus ex ?

[CronoDragoon]

I have no idea what Deus Ex is about. Except technology and cyborgs in a general sense.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 octobre 2013 - 04:55 .

[dreamgazer]

Kel Riever wrote...

Not really because it worked in ME1.  It isn't like you can't make that story.  You simply need to pay attention to what you are doing when you do.

Kel, we were around one---one!---Reaper in ME1 that we had very little direct contact with.  

The total number of Reapers range from a very, very, very conservative 300, to a realistic 1-2,000, to the possibility of 20k.

[Kel Riever]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I have no idea what Deus Ex is about.

Neither do I and I can tell you, after hearing about how it supposedly influenced ME3, I have no desire to ever find out.

[shingara]

Kel Riever wrote...

Okay, I can agree with that.  Here, right, if you say there are like 20,000 Sovereigns out there, you now have to come up with some pretty intricate stuff about how they get defeated.  Of course, your story is that these have been around for a beyond the pale period of time so 20,000 of them explains why they are.

But yeah, we're talking some large numbers here in relationship to the scale of the species of ME3, so you now need some over the top reason that the Reapers can be defeated.

A space wand, though, was not the way to go, imo   It didn't have to be conventional.  It didn't have to be a boss fight.  It didn't have to even make total technological sense,...just enough to matter.  But it did have to offer you a choice of merit and not come back and bite its own tale from the logic of the story perspective.

 There has been a means to defeat the reapers since mass effect 1, one reaper is in control of the control signal. That reaper would be the original harby. So in essence you just have to chop the head off the snake. But what happens in 3 is harby ends up being bossed around by a 6 year old hologram.

[dreamgazer]

shingara wrote...

I think that phrase is something you are doing for yourself right now. Im wondering do you understand the concept of evolution of arms, its exactly the same as an army with guns going up against an army with bows and arrows.  the reapers of which you still have not explained how the reapers are a hole that has been fallen into exists.

 But please i will give you another chance to explain how the reapers are a hole to fall into.

Please tell me you're kidding here. The mile-high, laser-wielding, vastly-overpowered and experienced mecha-Cthulhu that have been extinguishing species for eons are just "evolved arms"?

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Not really because it worked in ME1.  It isn't like you can't make that story.  You simply need to pay attention to what you are doing when you do.

Kel, we were around one---one!---Reaper in ME1 that we had very little direct contact with.  

The total number of Reapers range from a very, very, very conservative 300, to a realistic 1-2,000, to the possibility of 20k.

Yep.  I think we were posting at the same time.  Anyway, I was looking to agree with you when you clarified. 

[dreamgazer]

Kel Riever wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I have no idea what Deus Ex is about.

Neither do I and I can tell you, after hearing about how it supposedly influenced ME3, I have no desire to ever find out.

That would be a dire mistake. It's a brilliant game. Human Revolution is pretty damn good, too. 

[shingara]

dreamgazer wrote...

shingara wrote...

I think that phrase is something you are doing for yourself right now. Im wondering do you understand the concept of evolution of arms, its exactly the same as an army with guns going up against an army with bows and arrows.  the reapers of which you still have not explained how the reapers are a hole that has been fallen into exists.

 But please i will give you another chance to explain how the reapers are a hole to fall into.

Please tell me you're kidding here. The mile-high, laser-wielding, vastly-overpowered and experienced mecha-Cthulhu that have been extinguishing species for eons are just "evolved arms"?

 Yes they are, they have the best firepower, best defenses and have evolved the best way to control and resupply there army with new troops. garrus himself states it. The reapers are at the pinicle of advanced warfare. In historical terms they are the romans.

 Edit, ps i think your taking arms as litteral, im not saying the reapers are what they are cos they evolved really good arms, im on about they evolved the design of there weapons to have the biggest freakin guns and defenses against everyone elses guns.

Modifié par shingara, 16 octobre 2013 - 05:38 .

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I have no idea what Deus Ex is about.

Neither do I and I can tell you, after hearing about how it supposedly influenced ME3, I have no desire to ever find out.

That would be a dire mistake. It's a brilliant game. Human Revolution is pretty damn good, too. 

I hope. I seriously want to but I am so burned on the average quality of what is going to print in video games these days I have to say I have major trepedation.  And what ends up happening is I end up thinking...Hmmnnn $60 on a video game?  Or, I could go and spend it on X instead....

Maybe I will, though.

[CronoDragoon]

Well, I got HR for 10 bucks, and it was free on PS Plus. So it seems pretty low-risk at this point.

[Chashan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Not really because it worked in ME1.  It isn't like you can't make that story.  You simply need to pay attention to what you are doing when you do.

Kel, we were around one---one!---Reaper in ME1 that we had very little direct contact with.  

The total number of Reapers range from a very, very, very conservative 300, to a realistic 1-2,000, to the possibility of 20k.

Thing is, I am rather inclined to take a lower number of the sum-total of Reaper-capital ships as a given, since the things seem to have quite the picky criteria when it comes to 'recruiting' a new ship into their fold of that class.

Further, overpowering them on either a power or numerical scale is plenty. Providing them with both makes all the precautions taken with Sovereign's vanguard-role look more than just a little redundant.

[shingara]

Chashan wrote...

Thing is, I am rather inclined to take a lower number of the sum-total of Reaper-capital ships as a given, since the things seem to have quite the picky criteria when it comes to 'recruiting' a new ship into their fold of that class.

Further, overpowering them on either a power or numerical scale is plenty. Providing them with both makes all the precautions taken with Sovereign's vanguard-role look more than just a little redundant.

 Also it doesnt really matter how many there are, there could be 2000 of them or 20,000 but its not that the number of them that matters, its the tactics and weapons brought to the fight that matter. soverign managed to take so many ships out simply because it was a wtf is that fight and he had the geth on his side. It wasnt a planned battle and arms hadnt been developed specifically to fight reapers.


 Once you know how to kill one you know how to kill them all. It takes a long time and alot of resources to create a reaper class ship, so that would result in less resources for the reapers to create ground troops, which is there main weakness, also the fact that reaper class ships whilst under construction are extremely vulnerable.

Modifié par shingara, 16 octobre 2013 - 05:23 .

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

If there was ever a sequel to a trilogy that begged for a sub-title, rather than a numerical designation, Mass Effect is it.

Calling it "Mass Effect 4" implies continuation of a story that it would be exceedingly unwise to continue.

If that's what the new game's writers are doing, then I think it is a mistake. Writing a continuation of the trilogy's story isn't going to bring a sense of closure to Mass Effect, it's more likely to exacerbate the issues created during the development of Mass Effect 3.

If we get Mass Effect: Knights of Palaven and it's a set during a Reaper war campaign as a standalone story that uses the trilogy for context (just a random example) I think there's room to create something that will keep people excited about the franchise.

But Mass Effect 4 following on the events of Mass Effect 3... it could be done well, but I feel the odds of that are extremely low, even with the efforts of very talented people. The "hole" is simply too deep.

I actually think they should focus on the multiplayer co-op component of it. *flameshield activated*

I love SP RPGs, but I think the SP potential of the franchise is limited, given how the story ended. From a gameplay point of view, the co-op potential of the game's design has a lot of places it could go.

Obviously, a good story will be necessary for it work, regardless, I'm just referring to the context that I think has the greatest possibility for good storytelling.

[ragtagfleet]

Baelrahn wrote...

It may have something to do with a Narrative Director being more of a consulting/coordinating, whereas lead writer is more of a hands-on, active position. It's being developed in Montreal after all; which is on the other side of the continent.

Just a wild guess that a lot of other points mentioned here may have also had very drama-free, pragmatic reasons. It's employees of a company developing a product after all.

But maybe I just have a hard time imagining Walters keying Karpyshyn's car out of spite.

David Gaider, lead writer of Dragon Age, has a tumblr post that explains what a lead writer does at Bioware. 

http://dgaider.tumbl...ing-lead-writer

A lead writer at Bioware does not have creative control over the story. He is the coordinator of the writing team. The job is largely an administrative one; the lead writer has fewer writing tasks than other writers because he has responsibilities other than writing.  Some excerpts:

If someone pictures being Lead Writer as a scriptwriter or the person who dictates what the creative vision might be— then, no, that’s not the case. Not at BioWare, anyhow. I as Lead Writer have a lot of influence over the game’s story, sure, and the more something is entirely a Writing thing and doesn’t involve any other departments, the more I will have say over it, but ultimately I am a coordinator for the writers under me and an arbiter of how my writers are going to work together.

I spend my day doing my writing tasks and chatting with the other writers about what they’re working on— sometimes arguing and making decisions over direction, and looping in the Lead Designer when it’s a decision above my pay grade. Sometimes the Lead Designer comes in to tell us about a change that’s needed for X reason, and we argue. I write some angry emails, go to a lot of meetings, act like a cheerleader to get other people excited about the story, re-write whatever I’m working on a dozen times (and inform my writers that, yes, they need to re-write whatever they’re working on yet again— joy of joys), fix an endless list of bugs that only grows as the project goes on …and ultimately wonder how we manage to get anything done at all.

This is a job best handled by someone local to the writing team and to the Lead Designer. So Mac Walters not being lead writer for the next game is a given, IMO, but the reason is indeed a pragmatic and drama-free one.

Modifié par ragtagfleet, 16 octobre 2013 - 06:16 .

[Arcian]

crimzontearz wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Dubozz wrote...

"Yeah, my ending is pretty ****ty but I can't say this in the interview"
At least he is not a lead writer anymore. #hope

Sure, but now he's narrative director, which means he has more creative control than the lead writer. The lead writer and the narrative designers all have to conform to the vision of the narrative director.

You may think things got better, but it's the exact opposite - they have never been worse than they are now. ME4 is completely at Super MAC's mercy, and we all know he will abuse it to kingdom come without any regard to the fans of the franchise.

so...ME3 landed him a promotion?
 
So much for what Dreamgazer was saying..

ME3 made money and was a financial success. No way they'll demote someone for that.