981 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

When talking about writing a series most writers will tell you to have your ending planned. That is something that the creators of Mass Effect failed to do. This can be seen by the various ending ideas that were being tossed around post ME1 and mid ME2. It's because of this I don't think the catalyst was the writers idea until pre-ME3.

Another thing writers will tell you is that you have to know your own lore. It seems as if the writers in ME3 forgot the entire ME1 plot when writing the endings. The contradictions and inconsistencies make it even harder to believe that the catalyst was even a thought in ME1. I'm sorry, but from a meta perspective the catalyst doesn't seem like it existed at all pre-ME3.

 

To be fair, when ME1 came out, they had no idea if it was going to work or not. In retrospect, plenty of decisions are dumb, including going to something like the Reapers for your antagonists right off the bat. But at the time the creed was "go big or in all likelihood go home". It's the struggle between crafting an awesome one-time story to get people hooked in vs the slow and steady approach to world building. In the former you make lots of big dumb choices in order to reel in and entertain your audience, while in the latter you're much more reserved and focused on longevity and stability for a greater payoff (both literally and in terms of fan satisfaction). It becomes a paradox because in order to have the support for that glorious world building, you need to draw people in first and give them something they haven't seen (or at least haven't seen recently on in this particular way) before. But if you overextend, your choices for expanding the universe go out the window. It's a balance few can pull off well.

 

Granted by the time they started making ME2 it should've been clear that they succeeded in reeling in their fair share and Mass Effect was going to float. So they should've started to plan more, to develop the story in a logical, consistent and satisfactory way, as well as expanding the world for future projects. The haphazard "throw stuff and see what sticks" approach does become inexcusable from the second game onwards.

 

No excuse for ignoring/breaking the lore though. Though there does also need to be some flexibility to allow for change. And planned endings can fail too, if they doggedly stick to a vision that's long since passed. Case in point How I Met Your Mother. Ironically the inversion of Mass Effect 3. ME3's ending blew because the planning (or marked lack of it) sucked (and also "art") while HIMYM's ending blew because the writers were going to stick to their crappy idea if it killed them, despite seven years of development going completely the other way (and also "art"). In both cases, everything the fans liked about the work was ruined completely.

[DeathScepter]

Yet the game gives them a clue that completely destroys their idea.

 

 

yet the clues actually support their ideas moreso than your ideas.

[ShadowLordXII]

True for example George RR Martin. He had plans and ideas for the first 3 books and they were great, but because of lack of planning he wrote himself into a bit of a corner and the result was two mediocre books.

 

Actually, only Feast of the Crows was sub-par according to most readers and that's likely because it didn't have any viewpoints from major characters like Danearys, Jon Snow or Tyrion and instead it mostly focused on either minor characters or characters that nobody liked (Cercei).

 

As you write for a story, details are certainly going to change over time as things progress and the writer changes viewpoint or something. But great writers typically start out with a framework for how the story goes and how it ends. That way, the writer can maintain consistency within his plot while still following their own general plan.

 

Mass Effect did certainly suffer from internal damage due to Drew's departure/relocation from the team and that's heavily prevalent in the entirety of ME3. His departure likely meant that his original idea for the trilogy's ending (Either with the Dark Energy Ending or something else) couldn't be properly implemented by the remaining team. So they had to come up with a new idea.

 

Sadly...it sucked. Mostly because only one writer and the director were involved whereas the rest of the game was peer-reviewed and involved input from the entire team. Just take at look at the stark contrast in quality between the Tuchunka and Rannoch Arcs (Which involved and resolved character/story arcs that have been around since the first game) vs The appearance of the Star-Child (Came out of nowhere in the last five minutes and causes the entire trilogy's plot to collapse in on itself).

 

Moral of the Story: Leave wiggle room to adapt if an original idea for ending/plot event doesn't work, but whatever is thought up next should still maintain a story's consistency.

[CronoDragoon]

Actually, only Feast of the Crows was sub-par according to most readers and that's likely because it didn't have any viewpoints from major characters like Danearys, Jon Snow or Tyrion and instead it mostly focused on either minor characters or characters that nobody liked (Cercei).

 

Dance with Dragons was not well-received, either. It has the same Amazon star rating as Feast for Crows, and the most promoted reviews aren't exactly glowing.

[txgoldrush]

That's no excuse to be condescending: 'Someone else is being mean, so I'm going to be mean too!" 

 

Otherwise, this is your claims in a nutshell. You're the exact same as all of them. Everything that you're saying that they do is reflected onto you as well.

Yes I do have an excuse....if you are going to base opinions off of falsehoods or do dishonest critique, you should be called out and lambasted.

[txgoldrush]

Actually, only Feast of the Crows was sub-par according to most readers and that's likely because it didn't have any viewpoints from major characters like Danearys, Jon Snow or Tyrion and instead it mostly focused on either minor characters or characters that nobody liked (Cercei).

 

As you write for a story, details are certainly going to change over time as things progress and the writer changes viewpoint or something. But great writers typically start out with a framework for how the story goes and how it ends. That way, the writer can maintain consistency within his plot while still following their own general plan.

 

Mass Effect did certainly suffer from internal damage due to Drew's departure/relocation from the team and that's heavily prevalent in the entirety of ME3. His departure likely meant that his original idea for the trilogy's ending (Either with the Dark Energy Ending or something else) couldn't be properly implemented by the remaining team. So they had to come up with a new idea.

 

Sadly...it sucked. Mostly because only one writer and the director were involved whereas the rest of the game was peer-reviewed and involved input from the entire team. Just take at look at the stark contrast in quality between the Tuchunka and Rannoch Arcs (Which involved and resolved character/story arcs that have been around since the first game) vs The appearance of the Star-Child (Came out of nowhere in the last five minutes and causes the entire trilogy's plot to collapse in on itself).

 

Moral of the Story: Leave wiggle room to adapt if an original idea for ending/plot event doesn't work, but whatever is thought up next should still maintain a story's consistency.

Stop stating rumors as fact. Why do people insist on thinking that that post supposedly written by Weekes is true?

 

Nevermind Drew himself  distanced himself from the Dark Energy plot....then he gets put on SWTOR and ruins Revan. The portrayal of Revan in SWTOR was also very heavily criticized by the fanbase. Say what you want about Mac, but Drew was sailing the same ship.

[CronoDragoon]

Stop stating rumors as fact. Why do people insist on thinking that that post supposedly written by Weekes is true?

 

Because it makes little sense for someone to hack his account just to post a polite expose where he both explains why the ending doesn't quite work while still managing to complement Mac and Casey.

 

And also because the reasoning behind why the ending feels so different makes sense.

[txgoldrush]

Because it makes little sense for someone to hack his account just to post a polite expose where he both explains why the ending doesn't quite work while still managing to complement Mac and Casey.

 

And also because the reasoning behind why the ending feels so different makes sense.

However if its not confirmed, take it with a grain of salt.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Yes I do have an excuse....if you are going to base opinions off of falsehoods or do dishonest critique, you should be called out and lambasted.

 

And your basing your opinions on us on... what exactly? You're judging us based off your own collective bias and opinions, which we have no reason to value as highly as you do. That makes you no better than the image you paint onto others.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I edited my last post that fits fine as a response to this post. Don't want to double post. Sorry.


Never studied one on Fhel Prime? Where does it say that.....

 

I've been working on a rewrite, and was having a go round about this with one of the writers and he showed me in the wikia. It's there. There's a Prothean artifact that was never studied. It was found and then the colony was abducted by the Collectors. The whole place was forgotten by the ME writers afterward. It's like the more one looks at the back story of this with the books, the less some of the events of the games make sense. 

 

http://masseffect.wi...wiki/Fehl_Prime

 

Top paragraph. As of 2185 it is not being actively studied.

 

That was immediately after the events of Arrival.

[txgoldrush]

And your basing your opinions on us on... what exactly? You're judging us based off your own collective bias and opinions, which we have no reason to value as highly as you do. That makes you no better than the image you paint onto others.

 I only have to look at the arguments used on this thread.

[grey_wind]

True for example George RR Martin. He had plans and ideas for the first 3 books and they were great, but because of lack of planning he wrote himself into a bit of a corner and the result was two mediocre books.

Eh, I disagree. Not to get off topic, but Feast and Dance are nowhere near as bad as their critics make them out to be. Anything that followed Storm was inevitably going to be a disappointment.

 

Getting back on topic, I'm not sure lack of planning is really the biggest problem in ME3's writing. In fact, it seems the writers did have a general idea of where they wanted to take their story. The problem comes in when the man promoted to be the new Lead Writer is more interested in warping and twisting an already existing story into something "cool" that he wants instead of building on what came before. 

Case in point: Arrival, a DLC written by SuperMac that functions on Rule of Cool alone and retroactively invalidates both ME1 and 2.

[txgoldrush]

I've been working on a rewrite, and was having a go round about this with one of the writers and he showed me in the wikia. It's there. There's a Prothean artifact that was never studied. It was found and then the colony was abducted by the Collectors. The whole place was forgotten by the ME writers afterward. It's like the more one looks at the back story of this with the books, the less some of the events of the games make sense. 

 

http://masseffect.wi...wiki/Fehl_Prime

 

Top paragraph. As of 2185 it is not being actively studied.

 

That was immediately after the events of Arrival.

 

Treeya was studying the ruins on Fehl Prime, whose mentor is Liara, so in fact it was being studied. The artifact was identified as a communication device made before the Reapers attacked the Protheans. Its of no use.

[txgoldrush]

 

Eh, I disagree. Not to get off topic, but Feast and Dance are nowhere near as bad as their critics make them out to be. Anything that followed Storm was inevitably going to be a disappointment.

 

Getting back to topic, I'm not sure lack of planning is really the biggest problem in ME3's writing. In fact, it seems the writers did have a general idea of where they wanted to take their story. The problem comes in when the man promoted to be the new Lead Writer is more interested in warping and twisting an already existing story into something "cool" that he wants instead of building on what came before. 

Case in point: Arrival, a DLC written by SuperMac that functions on Rule of Cool alone and retroactively invalidates both ME1 and 2.

 

Please.

 

There are many things in ME1 that come up pretty important in ME3. You might want to play "signal tracking"  and "colony of the dead" in ME1 again. He did build on what came before. that is a fact.

 

Once again, you are another critic firing criticism from the hip instead of going by the facts.

 

And Arrival was not the rule of cool, it exists to thematically set up Mass Effect 3. the fact that Shepard cannot save everyone and may have to make decisions that cost the lives of others to achieve victory.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 I only have to look at the arguments used on this thread.

 

You aren't doing anything different. You tell people they are wrong and then... that's pretty much it. Take this for example:

 

There are many things in ME1 that come up pretty important in ME3. You might want to play "signal tracking" in ME1 again.

 

Once again, you are another critic firing criticism from the hip instead of going by the facts.

 

And Arrival was not the rule of cool, it exists to thematically set up Mass Effect 3.

 

Classic ITer stuff right there. Do you care to elaborate? This post doesn't seem to enlighten, just to insult. Are we supposed to take your word for it? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass, because this smells like you just laid it. Just throwing out that people are wrong and you are right isn't convincing stuff, it's arrogant tripe.

[txgoldrush]

You aren't doing anything different. You tell people they are wrong and then... that's pretty much it. Take this for example:

 

 

Classic ITer stuff right there. Do you care to elaborate? This post doesn't seem to enlighten, just to insult. Are we supposed to take your word for it? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass, because this smells like you just laid it. Just throwing out that people are wrong and you are right isn't convincing stuff, it's arrogant tripe.

Signal Tracking AI says that organics will always seek to control or destroy synthetics......and he uses the words "destroy" and "control". That's two ending options right there. He may not be 100% right but organics do try to either control or destroy synthetics all throughout the series and conflict results from this.

 

That's one big example.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Treeya was studying the ruins on Fehl Prime, whose mentor is Liara, so in fact it was being studied. The artifact was identified as a communication device made before the Reapers attacked the Protheans. Its of no use.

 

Of course it's of no use, tex, You missed the point again. You know if you actually contributed and got your facts straight people might have more respect for you.

 

Paragon Lost was released November 29 2012, well after the original game was published, after the EC explained the endings to us peons, and after Leviathan and Omega. It was written by Henry Gilroy. The thing hadn't been stated to do anything prior to March 6, 2012, therefore having it do anything in Paragon Lost other than be a useless communication beacon would break established canon. That was not the point of my post. You missed it completely. The point of my post was that Mac Walters could have used it instead of Mars while writing the original game (before it went gold in February 2012 - and probably that part would have been written in March 2011) as a place where the plans for the Crucible were stored.

 

Just do me a favor. Please ignore me because I don't give a damn about your opinions. 

[Farangbaa]

Signal Tracking AI says that organics will always seek to control or destroy synthetics......and he uses the words "destroy" and "control". That's two ending options right there. He may not be 100% right but organics do try to either control or destroy synthetics all throughout the series and conflict results from this.

 

That's one big example.

 

Well, I'm done here. This is like IT all over again.

[txgoldrush]

Of course it's of no use, tex, You missed the point again. You know if you actually contributed and got your facts straight people might have more respect for you.

 

Paragon Lost was released November 29 2012, well after the original game was published, after the EC explained the endings to us peons, and after Leviathan and Omega. It was written by Henry Gilroy. The thing hadn't been stated to do anything prior to March 6, 2012, therefore having it do anything in Paragon Lost other than be a useless communication beacon would break established canon. That was not the point of my post. You missed it completely. The point of my post was that Mac Walters could have used it instead of Mars while writing the original game (before it went gold in February 2012 - and probably that part would have been written in March 2011) as a place where the plans for the Crucible were stored.

 

Just do me a favor. Please ignore me because I don't give a damn about your opinions. 

But he didn't....tough. It makes more sense to put the info where a civilization has better access to, like Mars and Thessia, than some other backwater planet. And no I didn't miss the point. Bioware filled in the gaps

 

And your opinions are meaningless. Why? Because you base them of falsehoods and fallacies. You claim plot holes you cannot even prove, only assume. You completely ignore set up and thematic development. You falsely and dishonestly claim flaws that ME3 simply does not have, because you either ignore the narrative or cannot grasp it.

 

And for the last time not only for you but for anyone here, YOU CANNOT CLAIM PLOT HOLES when Vigil and Sovereign are contradicted (or even the Codex). Why is this? Because the lore came from characters, sources that may not be right. Look at this, by having lore in the first game come from characters, Bioware is free to contradict them for many reasons. They can be dishonest, they can not know the full picture. So Bioware is free to contradict them and cast them in this light. Plot holes come from PLOT ACTION, when its SHOWN that A happens because of B, not from characters giving you info dumps. Not only that, you have to PROVE the contradiction, not just assume it.

 

And in Leviathan, Shepard even laughs at the notion of Sovereign saying that the Reapers have no beginning and end. Because Bioware can do this, they are allowed to contradict characters giving lore.

[txgoldrush]

Well, I'm done here. This is like IT all over again.

 

No its not...its thematically setting up the conflicts between organics and synthetics, try again. fact of the matter is, organics vs synthetics theme was in the first game.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=9d545dwY-hM

 

And you are trying to equate a fan theory with a scene setting up and establishing theme...wow. Way to compare apples and oranges.

[Farangbaa]

No its not...its thematically setting up the conflicts between organics and synthetics, try again. fact of the matter is, organics vs synthetics theme was in the first game.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=9d545dwY-hM

 

And you are trying to equate a fan theory with a scene setting up and establishing theme...wow. Way to compare apples and oranges.

 

Yes it IS.

 

You're using the conversation with the AI on the Citadel in the exact same way as IT people do when they talk about foreshadowing  by quoting Kaidain saying: "are you hitting on me commander? Wait don't tell me, I prefer the illusion" (or something like that), which should be an indication that the ME3 ending is an illusion.

 

It's not. It's just a random conversation with words in it.

[txgoldrush]

Yes it IS.

 

You're using the conversation with the AI on the Citadel in the exact same way as IT people do when they talk about foreshadowing  by quoting Kaidain saying: "are you hitting on me commander? Wait don't tell me, I prefer the illusion" (or something like that), which should be an indication that the ME3 ending is an illusion.

 

It's not. It's just a random conversation with words in it.

Wow, you really don't get it.

 

Never did I say it foreshadowed the ending except for the choices you can make. Nevermind that you can contradict what this AI believes. Never did I say that it foreshadows the reaper's motive.

 

However, it does help build the universe and its themes, the fact is fact, that the conflict between organics and synthetics were established in the first game and its not only this quest, but learning of the Geth/Quarian conflict and dealing with a rogue VI that was really an AI experiment. ME3 builds of this theme by making the theme the Reapers motive.

 

This is not fan theory, this is Storytelling 101: Establishing Themes.

[Farangbaa]

Wow, you really don't get it.

 

Never did I say it foreshadowed the ending except for the choices you can make. Nevermind that you can contradict what this AI believes. Never did I say that it foreshadows the reaper's motive.

 

However, it does help build the universe and its themes, the fact is fact, that the conflict between organics and synthetics were established in the first game. ME3 builds of this theme by making the theme the Reapers motive.

 

This is not fan theory, this is storytelling 101.

 

It is exactly the same. You're using a conversation a lot of players have never even heard to bring about themes. If bioware did that, that was really bad.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that Organic/Synthetic conflict is a theme of the game. But the example you are using is an extremely crappy one.

 

You should look at the first episode of the Choose Wisely series. They use obscure examples most players have never even seen to 'prove' IT. Just like you are doing now to disprove it... or whatever you're doing here. 

 

Why even use this example? Can't you just say *badumtssss* "Quarians!"

[txgoldrush]

It is exactly the same. You're using a conversation a lot of players have never even heard to bring about themes. If bioware did that, that was really bad.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that Organic/Synthetic conflict is a theme of the game. But the example you are using is an extremely crappy one.

 

You should look at the first episode of the Choose Wisely series. They use obscure examples most players have never even seen to 'prove' IT. Just like you are doing now to disprove it... or whatever you're doing here. 

 

Why even use this example? Can't you just say *badumtssss* "Quarians!"

 

"It is exactly the same. You're using a conversation a lot of players have never even heard to bring about themes. If bioware did that, that was really bad."

 

Did you miss the point in my post where I mentioned other things other than this one sidequest? Nevermind I didn't even mention Saren's view of combining organics and synthetics.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The bashing of the ITers is getting real old, real fast. They have every right to their interpretation as you guys do to yours. All you are doing is making yourselves look petty.