Terrorized? No, but the result of his perpetual artistic whining about killing off Shepard in all endings colliding with Preston + Casey wanting an optional non sacrificial ending is the breath scene (and Mac's Promoveatur ut amoveatur fate).So Mac terrorized everyone into submission. Really, I get you want your Disney villain but the world doesn't work like that.
Yes, they did. But besides that The Witcher games have a distinctly different goal than the ME games did. Related to that: if BW had canonized one LI for ME3, as happened with TW2, fans would have gone batshit. Like, even more batshit.
Terrorized? No, but the result of his perpetual artistic whining about killing off Shepard in all endings colliding with Preston + Casey wanting an optional non sacrificial ending is the breath scene (and Mac's Promoveatur ut amoveatur fate).
I know you want to white knight Bioware....but sometimes there is actually a clear cut culprit for certain mishaps
I though julia was saying that the ME series goal was unfeasible in the first place. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that fan expectations for decision carryover in an integrated trilogy will be unrealistic, so you're better off not pretending that you're going to carry all decisions over in the first place.
Well, I'm not sure places like the BSN are a good gauge for how the fanbase felt about the degree to which decisions carried over. For every fan expecting TW2-type variation in ME3, I'll bet there was one amazed that a developer was even doing this in the first place. The latter just has much less reason to post on a forum, since fans by and large are more likely to post about something they don't like.
I though julia was saying that the ME series goal was unfeasible in the first place. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that fan expectations for decision carryover in an integrated trilogy will be unrealistic, so you're better off not pretending that you're going to carry all decisions over in the first place.
That's exactly what I was saying. Mac mentioned it at a conference. When you did the math of how many decisions made in ME got carried over to ME2 you had to make most of them not matter, otherwise things would have really gotten out of hand. Many got reduced to cameos. Now if they hadn't you would have had two or more separate games. Now carry those into 3 where you had several characters that really mattered that could have died in ME1 or 2, and the number of forks increase.
This is why if they go forward in the ME series they have to set a canon or simply wipe the reaper war ending and even Shepard from existence. it can be done by sticking with the original myth that the Mass Relays were created by the Protheans who died out mysteriously 50,000 years ago. Or maybe they're still around and control only a small part of the galaxy now after having won their metacon war, but that reduced their power to a fraction of what it was and allowed the other races to rise up against them.
It is for us in Italy (ok...for those who, like me, had a classical upbringing and an archaeologist as a mother). Promoveatur ut amoveatur means let him be promoted so he may be moved away. Mac has been promo ed in a position of less direct effect on the franchise (unless he decides to be a total ****)Is Mac actually removed? Last I heard he was still around.
And is saying "Promoveatur ut amoveatur" actually an idiom these days? I got it, but I took Latin back in the day.
This is why if they go forward in the ME series they have to set a canon or simply wipe the reaper war ending and even Shepard from existence. it can be done by sticking with the original myth that the Mass Relays were created by the Protheans who died out mysteriously 50,000 years ago. Or maybe they're still around and control only a small part of the galaxy now after having won their metacon war, but that reduced their power to a fraction of what it was and allowed the other races to rise up against them.
I'm still hoping for a "Reaper war was ended, here are some bits of information that contradict each other for any of the endings". That way Shepard and crew still did what they did but no divisive canon is established. However the reaction I've had when I've suggested this before makes me think that it might be a unite everyone in a disagree with me situation because it seems to satisfy no-one.
I seriously doubt it will be a linear third person shooter. Set about 100 years into the future. The relays get repaired. Even if the technology was "destroyed" it doesn't mean people forgot how to build it, so it gets rebuilt. Quarians rebuilt the Geth with a different architecture. They were all hacked and killed during the war by the reapers even though they had true AI -- this could have happened and those slides shown are the new Geth. All that "knowledge from the old civilizations?" (synthesis) They didn't get any more advanced than us anyway so who cares? The "new DNA?" Because of this no one remembers what the "old DNA" looked like so it appears normal because the tech storing records of the old DNA changed all of it to the new DNA even though the tech didn't become sentient (whoa, talk about an ass pull). The reapers are gone, dead, whatever, who cares? Some took off, some dropped dead. Reaper denial groups are even springing up saying that the wrath of some god did all of the damage - They are Hanar and calling them "Dekindlers." Civilizations scavenged tech from the dead ones, and there were dead ones regardless of the ending chosen. The home worlds and colonies are being rebuilt. That solves the ending problem. So life can go on as normal without an ending canon now.
All the characters from the original trilogy are dead except for Liara who has gone off and is doing her Shadow Broker thing somewhere and no one knows she is the Shadow Broker. Oh, you say Miranda and Oriana could still be alive? Perhaps Wrex or Wreav? Miranda would be around 135 and probably living with her sister raising chickens, and Wrex could have been assassinated. Miranda also could have been killed doing one of her jobs. Shepard would be dead at least of old age in any case.
You missed Grunt.
Tumbling end over end in space, trapped in his tank for eternity cause he was blasted out of the airlock.
It's silly and wrong to only look at a choice in terms out of it's outcomes.
Choices offer benefits as they're made, outcome or no outcome.
Yes, choices have roleplaying benefits for simply letting a player make them. If this had been a series where the developers could simply canonize whatever they felt like, freely offering choices in their games would have been great.
However Mass Effect was (and Mass Effect Next may be) a series where the developer made the commitment that players would be able import saves and see their choices affect the story. They were constricted by the choices they had previously given players and had to write around them.
The outcomes do matter and choices need to be looked at in terms of that. Offering choices willy-nilly seems great for players in the short term until reality sets in and it becomes apparent that they are hurting your ability to deliver a quality product.
Giving the player freedom to kill everyone in ME2 created a resource sinkhole for ME3.
A lack of planning and resources results in a clear canon path with other choices being shoved under the carpet to get the story on a single track.
Poorly conceived "epic" choices like the Council fall flat on their face and end up being acknowledged with a few lines.
If high-level divergence will never be delivered on and serves to disrupt a coherent narrative, maybe don't do it? Rather than wasting Bioware's and the player's time with choices that a minimal amount of thought would tell you wouldn't work (human council), focus on offering choices that you know you will be able to deliver on.
I know you want to white knight Bioware....but sometimes there is actually a clear cut culprit for certain mishaps
Do you even know what white knightining means? I'm pointing out that you want to "blame it all" on 1 person in a project that had multiple key people just for your argument convinience. It's like you can't wrap your head around the concept that maybe the entire team made smaller/bigger mistakes and it's not just a developement fairy tale with pristine heroes pushing for blue babies and big evil villains lurking in shadows to starve Tali.
Most importantly, no one us was there and not even quotes from particular devs automatically mean that it's exactly a 100% accurate description of the events behind the ME3 developement. That's why this kind of discussions are just pointless to me. You can perfectly articulate all your criticisism of everything in the game/ending without going into personal "which dev is to blame in particular for this or that thing".
White Knighting, http://www.urbandict...white knightingDo you even know what white knightining means? I'm pointing out that you want to "blame it all" on 1 person in a project that had multiple key people just for your argument convinience. It's like you can't wrap your head around the concept that maybe the entire team made smaller/bigger mistakes and it's not just a developement fairy tale with pristine heroes pushing for blue babies and big evil villains lurking in shadows to starve Tali.
in the matter of a lack of explicit happier non sacrificial ending I CAN and WILL blame it all on Mac.
About as useful and constructive as movie reviews where the journos focus on how much they dislike the particular director/actor and push for "he/she ruined the entire movie and probably hates puppies!!11" rethoric.
non sequitor, I provided visual evidence, more than once, that 2 out of 3 members of the highest creative force in the game's production WANTED a happier, non sacrificial ending. The third and not mentioned one (Mac) is the one who was defending his choices of narrative pointing at Breaking Bad & Walter White. Now explain to me, EXACTLY, why I should NOT hold him accountable for that particular facet of ME3's ending state given his unwillingness to even deny it?About as useful and constructive as movie reviews where the journos focus on how much they dislike the particular director/actor and push for "he/she ruined the entire movie and probably hates puppies!!11" rethoric.
I just got the warm fuzzies thinking about the next cycle waking him up, Javik-style...Tumbling end over end in space, trapped in his tank for eternity cause he was blasted out of the airlock.
non sequitor, I provided visual evidence, more than once, that 2 out of 3 members of the highest creative force in the game's production WANTED a happier, non sacrificial ending. The third and not mentioned one (Mac) is the one who was defending his choices of narrative pointing at Breaking Bad & Walter White. Now explain to me, EXACTLY, why I should NOT hold him accountable for that particular facet of ME3's ending state given his unwillingness to even deny it?
Because you were not there. Not to mention, 2 out of 3 highest creative forces that both outranked Mac Walters couldn't "get it their way"? Did he put a gun to their head? This doesn't even hold together
Why can't just you just criticize the game/plot without focusing on particular creators and behind-the-scenes drama? The criticism would get across just as well and anyone who was actually reaponsible for something you didn't like would know it.
sooooo eye witness testimony, by your logic, should be thrown outta court because "we were not there" sounds legit.Because you were not there. Not to mention, 2 out of 3 highest creative forces that both outranked Mac Walters couldn't "get it their way"? Did he put a gun to their head? This doesn't even hold together
the delivery was altogether atrocious tho and the lack of complete explicity
And this part is all that needs to be said. Everyone 'guilty' will get the message/criticisim and at the same time the point doesn't get muddled with behind-the-scene gossip, pointing fingers and useless drama "he said she said". The most brutal, ruthless criticism of art/product that focuses just on the actual subject instead of creation process will always be recieved better than "going personal".
not the point MacFly.....'testimony'?
Did you make sure to swear them in first, crimzon?
I think the biggest lesson to learn if they're planning to do another import-trilogy is to have the whole thing plotted out from day one and don't do endless retcons because something sounds 'cooler' down the road. In essence do a Babylon 5, not a Battlestar Galactica.
I do not believe, nor I will EVER believe in leveling a criticism (or offering a compliment) to a team effort's product without addressing directly those responsible for the object of the critique.And this part is all that needs to be said. Everyone 'guilty' will get the message/criticisim and at the same time the point doesn't get muddled with behind-the-scene gossip, pointing fingers and useless drama "he said she said". The most brutal, ruthless criticism of art/product that focuses just on the actual subject instead of creation process will always be recieved better than "going personal".
Retour en haut