dreamgazer wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Refuse would be the easiest. Everyone dies, fast forward to the future, clean slate, no imports necessary.
No humans, either.
I'm aware of what he said. He was certainly a part of the ending. And approved of it. All he was saying in Final Hours was that he wanted it to be thought-provoking. Not unlike a lot of writers out there.StreetMagic wrote...
He says in the Final Hours app that he just wanted people to think about this stuff. That's it. To consider the possibilities and problems. I think it's just meant to be a big brainstorming session, if anything. Not that he's distancing himself.
I'd quote it for you, but it's an embedded video in Adobe AIR.
Modifié par Mcfly616, 28 janvier 2014 - 06:05 .
ATiBotka wrote...
Harbinger.
caldas wrote...
spirosz wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Yes, for some of them (and some would say many), but the ones that I found to be (by far) the most problematic were the ones exclusive to ME3 (and introduced in such).
Which ones?
If I may:
1 - The Crucible
2 - The whole "I created machines to kill organics so they won't be killed by machines" thing
3 - Starbrat
4 - Autodialog
5 - Not fighitng reapers all game long
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Mcfly616 wrote...
I'm aware of what he said. He was certainly a part of the ending. And approved of it. All he was saying in Final Hours was that he wanted it to be thought-provoking. Not unlike a lot of writers out there.StreetMagic wrote...
He says in the Final Hours app that he just wanted people to think about this stuff. That's it. To consider the possibilities and problems. I think it's just meant to be a big brainstorming session, if anything. Not that he's distancing himself.
I'd quote it for you, but it's an embedded video in Adobe AIR.
While we're talking about such things, I'll go off on a slight tangent just to say that imo I didn't find The Last of Us too "thought-provoking". I finished it a week ago. After hearing everyone ranting and raving about the shear brilliance of what it does for story in the gaming industry, and how touching the flawed characters are....and the ending. Amaaaaazing.
NOT. I finished the game and couldn't help but laugh at the contrast between the love and praise TLoU got, and how much hate and rage ME3 got. The writing in TLoU was not better than ME3 by any stretch. That goes for the characters too. The ending was laughable (okay, maybe not 'laughable', but I certainly laughed due to people's claims of brilliance). I'll just say it plainly: imo The Last of Us didn't venture anywhere Bioware hasn't already been. And Bioware has done it better.
I know, I know. Nobody even said anything about TLoU. But I've just had that whole thing on my mind since I beat it, and this is pretty much the only place I come to talk about anything gaming related nowadays. So yeah, it's not flame-bait. Don't get it twisted. I just needed to get it out. This game being universally praised for not doing anything new imo, whereas my favorite series gets trashed for the very same things it did better and long before.
Mcfly616 wrote...
NOT. I finished the game and couldn't help but laugh at the contrast between the love and praise TLoU got, and how much hate and rage ME3 got. The writing in TLoU was not better than ME3 by any stretch. That goes for the characters too. The ending was laughable (okay, maybe not 'laughable', but I certainly laughed due to people's claims of brilliance). I'll just say it plainly: imo The Last of Us didn't venture anywhere Bioware hasn't already been. And Bioware has done it better.
liggy002 wrote...
Yeah, 5 was a big one for me. We only get to fight one measley destroyer.
I'm not sure. After all, ME3 did get a good amount of awards. ME3 won G.I.'s goty award in 2012. G.I. gave it to TLoU this past year. They're both critically acclaimed.AlanC9 wrote...
Mcfly616 wrote...
NOT. I finished the game and couldn't help but laugh at the contrast between the love and praise TLoU got, and how much hate and rage ME3 got. The writing in TLoU was not better than ME3 by any stretch. That goes for the characters too. The ending was laughable (okay, maybe not 'laughable', but I certainly laughed due to people's claims of brilliance). I'll just say it plainly: imo The Last of Us didn't venture anywhere Bioware hasn't already been. And Bioware has done it better.
Does this mean that TLoU is overrated, or ME3 is underrated?
Modifié par Mcfly616, 28 janvier 2014 - 07:06 .
liggy002 wrote...
5 - Not fighitng reapers all game long
Yeah, 5 was a big one for me. We only get to fight one measley destroyer.
Modifié par dreamgazer, 28 janvier 2014 - 06:57 .
caldas wrote...
If I may:
1 - The Crucible
Jaulen wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Refuse would be the easiest. Everyone dies, fast forward to the future, clean slate, no imports necessary.
No humans, either.
I doubt they'd ever do a game where there wasn't an option of a human protagonist.
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
caldas wrote...
If I may:
1 - The Crucible
The Crucible is an alright concept, just poorly executed. Honestly, how else are you realistically going to defeat the Reapers? Not necessarily the Crucible itself, but the concept of a superweapon is necessary.
Absolutely agreed. The Reapers were always going to be defeated by some device, superweapon or exploited weakness, it was just a case of what form it took and how it was executed, and the Crucible took the form of a huge, destructive superweapon.MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
caldas wrote...
If I may:
1 - The Crucible
The Crucible is an alright concept, just poorly executed. Honestly, how else are you realistically going to defeat the Reapers? Not necessarily the Crucible itself, but the concept of a superweapon is necessary.
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
caldas wrote...
If I may:
1 - The Crucible
The Crucible is an alright concept, just poorly executed. Honestly, how else are you realistically going to defeat the Reapers? Not necessarily the Crucible itself, but the concept of a superweapon is necessary.
liggy002 wrote...
Robosexual wrote...
Destroy? Removing synthetics from a sci-fi game?
God no.
As I said, you don't need to remove the synthetics. If far enough into the future, people will rebuild them. Also, who's to say that the Catalyst wasn't lying about the synthetics going boom boom.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Vortex13 wrote...
liggy002 wrote...
Robosexual wrote...
Destroy? Removing synthetics from a sci-fi game?
God no.
As I said, you don't need to remove the synthetics. If far enough into the future, people will rebuild them. Also, who's to say that the Catalyst wasn't lying about the synthetics going boom boom.
How far into the future are we talking here?
I don't get the idea that setting the game hundreds or thousands of years in the future somehow fixes everything and the whole universe is back to a 'common' state. Unless the MEU is technilogically stagnent, then the face of the Galaxy should look very, very different from what we have in ME 1 - 3; even moreso if one is taking the various ending scenarios with their surviving levels of technology.
Some of the more extreme versions of the whole "Set it in the future so everything is the same" ideas that I have seen; the ones that call for a sequel to take place 10,000 + years in the future; make even less sense. A story set on Earth during 10,000 B.C. is going to be very different then one set during present day.
The Night Mammoth wrote...
Absolutely agreed. The Reapers were always going to be defeated by some device, superweapon or exploited weakness, it was just a case of what form it took and how it was executed, and the Crucible took the form of a huge, destructive superweapon.MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
caldas wrote...
If I may:
1 - The Crucible
The Crucible is an alright concept, just poorly executed. Honestly, how else are you realistically going to defeat the Reapers? Not necessarily the Crucible itself, but the concept of a superweapon is necessary.
It's fine in concept; a device passed down from previous cycles that requires galactic cooperation to construct, and combines with an established part of the lore after a massive climactic battle. It was just implemented terribly. Abruptly introduced, too disconnected from the plot for most of the game, and with little to no explanation or general information provided for it.
Han Shot First wrote...
Vortex13 wrote...
liggy002 wrote...
Robosexual wrote...
Destroy? Removing synthetics from a sci-fi game?
God no.
As I said, you don't need to remove the synthetics. If far enough into the future, people will rebuild them. Also, who's to say that the Catalyst wasn't lying about the synthetics going boom boom.
How far into the future are we talking here?
I don't get the idea that setting the game hundreds or thousands of years in the future somehow fixes everything and the whole universe is back to a 'common' state. Unless the MEU is technilogically stagnent, then the face of the Galaxy should look very, very different from what we have in ME 1 - 3; even moreso if one is taking the various ending scenarios with their surviving levels of technology.
Some of the more extreme versions of the whole "Set it in the future so everything is the same" ideas that I have seen; the ones that call for a sequel to take place 10,000 + years in the future; make even less sense. A story set on Earth during 10,000 B.C. is going to be very different then one set during present day.
I'd set a sequel a few hundred years out. Say, 700 years or so.
That is far enough removed from the Shepard trilogy that the galaxy has more than enough time to fully rebuild and recover. Its also far enough out that no one would need to ask where Shepard is, as even High EMS Destroy Shep would be long since dead. And by jumping forward a few hundred years you can present the protagonist with a major threat to deal with, without it straining suspension of disbelief. One of the flaws of the Star Wars EU, is that galaxy wide threats seem to be emerging every few years. And finally, they could get away with introducing some new tech to the setting as several hundred years have passed.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
StreetMagic wrote...
All of them are too radical besides Destroy. That's my main problem. Control is kind of the second least radical, so I see it working too.
Part of the allure of Mass Effect for me was the slight nod to real human history and real human traits, and how we were being thrust forward into this outlandish sci-fi universe. Earth and the Alliance were a byproduct of old space programs like NASA. They still hailed old explorers like Gagarin and Armstrong as heroes. It was supposed to be an extension of realistic human history and not a complete fantasy based universe. Refuse just wipes all of that connection out, and Synthesis changes it too much. They become entirely different settings. The galactic genepool is changed in either case. They work better as endings, but not jumping points.
Anyone who doesn't like humans though just boggles my mind. Is that misanthropy creeping into your game preferences? Or something else?
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Retour en haut