31 réponses à ce sujet

[Maximillion46]

Rekthor wrote...

I hadn't thought of this before. The attitude was that since nobody was complaining about ME2, why change a good thing? I'd still rather not have to do a rewrite of that, and it may not be necessary, but all the same, it is a pain in the ass. If what I've got so far was to be written into a campaign, it would be unrealistically long. Over the 30-odd hours that the canon story takes in ME3; maybe 40 hours.

Although for what I've rewritten so far, namely the Catalyst's motivations and conclusion for as to why the Reapers aren't needed anymore, all that would to be shifted to properly foreshadow the story in ME2 is some well-placed dialogue. Thanks for the offer though; I might take you up on that.

The main problem that I see is foreshadowing the ending of ME3, which wasn't only missing in ME3 but ME2 as well (as someone told me, dark energy was but a side note, perhaps a possibilitiy). ME2 seems like an epic adventure with many twists and turns and I like it a lot... but if you look for it linking ME1 and ME3, besides some choices being transferred, there isn't much to be found, no bridging, no 'second act', though I'm probably exaggerating.

Anyway, I looked at a simple ending (just kill the goddamn Reapers), alternate endings (revealing Reaper origins and either brokering a deal or taking down the powerful, but somewhat tragic villain) or the ending we got (which is missing quite some foreshadowing that we saw a bit in ME1, hardly noticed in ME2 and was seemingly resolved in ME3 (quarian-geth peace) only for it to be announced 'the greatest problem in the universe' by the Catalyst). I'm a pretty big fan of big sci-fi concepts and creators vs created is no exception (I personally like synthesis as an option, it was just badly executed), but it wasn't properly foreshadowed. As an amateur writer I either whack people over the head with the foreshadowing or keep it juuust subtle enough, but showing us two big proofs (EDI and Legion) AGAINST the Catalyst's ultimate problem in the same game, is well... bad.

All the endings besides the simple one (which was probably what a lot of people wanted, but not everyone mind you), had the flaw of: last-minute reveals are not liked, especially if it contradicts the rest of the trilogy (which happens quite easily what with all the different standpoints of every race and faction: quarian and geth; krogan and salarian; and so on). So you need some foreshadowing, some evidence for what this starchild is telling you.

Though I could just be wanting to make my alternate ending fit way too much, I do think ME2 should've given us some relatively big snippets... not the little size of the dark energy idea and certainly not the size of the geth conflict (which during Tali's loyalty mission was enforced by Tali's father, I think? He made the network on purpose?)... But it did give us Reaper reproduction, an interesting concept...

One of the biggest complaints by people was probably that a problem from ME1, was only partially mentioned with Tali's missions in ME2 and was seemingly resolved in ME3... only to be pronounced only solvable by fusing organic and synthetic life. People care a lot about themes, it seems.

Edit: I'd love to read what you've got anyway. Might be a while though with exams coming up and stuff, so I won't be able to read a lot until February. And also, if you believe you can make something truly magnificent, go for it;) The most important thing for a writer is vision (and perhaps talent and a storyboard)

Modifié par Maximillion46, 21 décembre 2013 - 07:30 .

[squidney2k1]

1. Many "huge" choices ended up lacking significance to the overall plot--The Collector Base, result of keeping/destroying Maelon's data on a Genophage cure, Shepard saving the original council or not.

I understand that they had to adhere to a policy of not punishing or alienating players that never played the previous games, or made certain decisions, but the results felt lackluster, and at many times as if the previous events never happened. Bioware just wasn't creative enough to figure out a way to adjust the overall story based on the decisions you made with the larger events...and I'll admit, I can't think of any really good ways either (except for killing/saving certain characters).

2. War Assets. The idea is sound and in many instances, it works, but the end-game result is pretty poor. Mainly, this is due to lack of cinematic flair and late-game interpretation. Instead of the different endings that magically say "you only had X% so you get this scene," there should've been many scenes & elements showing the breakdown.

It would've been better if EMS was tied to specific units as well as the overall number. For example, if you didn't have a high enough EMS, you would eventually start loosing groups/units towards the end of the final push. Low EMS would should increased devastation and units getting wiped out, spaced out along the final mission(s). You could even lose squadmates. Bioware was able to accomplish this in ME2 with the suicide mission, so I don't think lack of gameplay consequences was a matter of "we couldn't do it," but more in line with, "we never thought about it."

3. Indoctrination was cast aside from the story, except with Cerberus.

Ok, this one was baffling--the Reapers are finally here, wrecking **** all over the galaxy, and arguably their biggest weapon/tactic is strangely underused...except by Cerberus? Asinine in a way. TIM was able to indoctrinate troops left and right, but we never really see any effects from the Reapers. Javik explained how their greatest enemy came from within and they constantly had to face threats from nowhere due to indoctrination, but we play the game experiencing no conflicts or stabs in the back, aside from Cerberus troops. It would've been much more interesting--and better for the story--to have missions where you face entire forces of indoctrinated enemies that aren't wearing white, yellow, & black. And I was shocked that after all of the build-up by Anderson about indoctrination occurring on Earth that we only faced standard forces. Would've been much better if we had to also face normal soldiers & civies, and deal with random betrayal.

4. Starchild

I'll actually cut Bioware some slack: This was the plot decision they chose to go with, and I won't fault them for that (read: no Indoctrination Theory talk). I WILL however fault them for how poorly he was implemented. Why did he take the form of the child instead of the Virmire Casualty? Why were the dream sequences shown to be pretty much meaningless. Why during development and play-testing did no one say, "wait, this doesn't make sense," and push off the idea of providing more ****ing info and storyline reasoning. Why was it never explained why the A.I. left Shepard kill it anyway instead of just offing him with his obvious super-control? Ball....dropped. Period.

5. Lack of some serious customization options.

I applaud Bioware for allowing customization options in every game they make. This is an industry that seems to shy away from this aspect in most games, besides the huge & obvious benefits for it. But let's be honest: at this point, Bioware should be much, much better at it. Not even counting all of their other games with character customization, this is the 3rd Mass Effect and the options are pretty bland. Not much improvement: hair & beard styles still suck, the face creator is simple and archaic, the armor system is exactly the same from ME2, and much of the touted customization options like weapon & multiplayer appearance came down to "pick 3 colors" and pre-defined looks. Take note of other games Bioware and remember that it's not always a bad thing to copy some of their elements.

6. Lack of non-Shepard character development.

This is another complicated issues because of the span of 3 games, new & old players, and decision choices. Still, it would've been good to see some squadmate development play out in significant ways. What was the point of pushing Garrus towards a Paragon/C-Sec role, or a Renegade/Spectre role way back in ME1 if he turns out exactly the same? How come in ME3 all former squadmates are the same regardless of their ultra-significant & life-changing decisions during their loyalty missions, so long as they are loyal in general? Even Mordin--arguably the most dynamic and conflicted squadmate of all--seems pretty complacent in the singular path he's thrown, regardless of the events of ME2. It seems like a cop-out to turn it all into a situation where he simply says, "oh yeah, it was bad/good, and the data helped/I figured it out on my own." THIS I will was a sheer lack of creative capacity on Bioware's part. I love Bioware and think they are near the top of the list in creative game development...but this is still one area they need to work on. Perhaps borrow some of the minds behind the Dragon Age series, because they tend to do a much better job at character development.

[Rekthor]

alleyd wrote...

Looking to rewrite Mass Effect? My feeling is not to make the mistake of "criticising" Bioware, even by inference, they own the IP and allow fans and creatives to get joy and freedom of expression from it. They indulge and support this and that should be applauded. Especially by people looking to ride on the IP for whatever reason. They created the playpen that has inspired imaginations, good and bad came from that design choice, but inspiration is always good. Rewrite, reframe or remixing, call it what you will, but be honest and celebrate the franchise and the people behind it. 

I appreciate the warning, but believe me when I say I bear no ill will towards the writers. They're the professionals; I'm an 18 year old university student and part-time armchair warrior and philosopher. I've written myself into a corner more times than I can count; and I have the multi-year old plot synopsis' to prove it.

That being said, I have minor OCD and hate leaving things open-ended. It's not much different than normal fanfiction, albeit it's a larger project. I prefer to think of it not as "I'll do your job for you and do it better", but rather "I love your story, and I enjoy it so much that I'd like to play in the sandbox you made". It's much less out of critical anger then it is about excited inspiration. Sort of like after you watch Lord of the Rings for the first time and decide you want to write fantasy novels (which I did).

It's all out of love for the universe, brother. I wouldn't do it otherwise.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The only thing we've done for the project really is examine the series and remove the "video game logic" which when you're writing something in a novel format you have to do. There are things in written media that don't work in visual media because they would get bogged down, yet they work fine in a novel. And things in visual media that just don't translate well in written media. The written media needs more detail. And when you get to that you can expand on things and open up the cultures and expand on those which Bioware didn't do because it was a game.

And have fun with a character periodically. Take them out for a spin and get to know them within the universe but outside of the story. Something that doesn't count. Just for fun. It helps develop the character. You know who they are. They're the squadmates and the more minor characters you need to write about but only have information about them that's in the game. You have to figure out who they are. We are never going to write the characters exactly the same as the original writers anyway. We are never going to write in the style of the original writers anyway, so why even try? Develop your own style. Stay within the lore of the universe, yes, but realized that just as there are more cities on earth than Vancouver and London, there are more cities on Illium than Nos Astra, and there are going to be more factions in the galaxy than those that are listed. It's a big galaxy. Play. It's a sandbox.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 22 décembre 2013 - 06:20 .

[MrStoob]

There was nothing wrong with the ME story, it was just presented badly at time.