99 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

I'm reading through some of the comics on the Dark Horse app and I know Mac had a hand in a lot of things in ME2. I know a lot of people have issues with ME2's plot, but generally I really liked the writing in that game, particularly I think many of the characters Mac wrote in 2 were great, like Miranda, Aria, TIM (Allegedly) and likely more.

 

In 3 there were a lot of previously established characters that felt out of character to me or were too different at least in the way they talked. Udina and Anderson felt very, very different to me and The Illusive Man was mostly just rambling and failed to use any convincing arguments whereas I felt like most of his conversations in ME2 swayed me more.

 

But looking through the comics he wrote (the ones where Mac actually did the scripts) I find that pretty much every single book in the Foundation series is completely subpar and underhwelming, but one like Homeworlds for example (the first issue) was a nice story as well. I also think Mac handled Garrus and Wrex in ME1 pretty well.

 

But I can't seem to wrap my head around it. If Foundation and missions like Mars, Thessia and Cerberus Coup in ME3 are representative of writing when it's purely written by Mac, then he's not a very good writer at all.

 

On a side note, I don't like the way Mac makes characters have the same voices. Almost all his characters sound tongue-in-cheek e.g. "You think I'm tryin' to fool you?", "That bad?" -- he did this to Anderson too. In ME1 and ME2 Anderson was very much like "Shepard, do you think you can do that? It would be a great help." and if that line was spoken by ME3 Anderson he'd say it like "Shepard, you think you can manage that? Hell, it'd save me some trouble!"

 

I liked Anderson better in ME1, but whatever.

[Excella Gionne]

Maybe he wanted them to have more personality. Characters constantly asking nice questions without a bit of aggression or joking makes the dialogue feel flat.

[Linkenski]

Yeah, I did get that feeing in ME1, and I think reactions to Anderson's sendoff at the end of ME3 is a testament to how great Mac wrote that character, but while I was moved, I did feel like it was annoying that Anderson felt very different just in the way he talked. Ah well, you gain some and you lose some. The only reason I'd prefer ME1 Anderson is because that's how he was established in that game, so I would've prefered some consistency.

[Excella Gionne]

Yeah, I did get that feeing in ME1, and I think reactions to Anderson's sendoff at the end of ME3 is a testament to how great Mac wrote that character, but while I was moved, I did feel like it was annoying that Anderson felt very different just in the way he talked. Ah well, you gain some and you lose some. The only reason I'd prefer ME1 Anderson is because that's how he was established in that game, so I would've prefered some consistency.

Well, he still does have consistency. Maybe he's a bit more dynamic than static now. Anderson felt more alive for me in ME3 though. He's kind of absent for most parts of the games of the Trilogy which is why I do feel sort of indifferent at times.

[dreamgazer]

Neither Mac nor Drew have ever been "great" writers.

Thread title changed, so this post is a little less relevant.

[rapscallioness]

...uh...well, honestly, Idk. Some things are good. Some not so good. And I'm pretty sure quite a few things are sitting on a dev room cutting floor somewhere. Things that might have helped flesh out a character or situation more.

 

I suspect that game writers have to really make room for alot of other stuff. They can't really bring everything they want, or think is necessary, to a game story.

 

i liked Anderson in ME3. Very much so. i liked him in ME1, too. But it was so small it's hard to tell. I esp liked the Citadel dlc biography of anderson. When he's talking abt his parents. That was my favorite one.

[Valmar]

Personally I only started to actually care about Anderson in ME3. I didn't hate him or anything, he was a good guy and I liked him but he wasn't really there that much in the first game and even less so in the second. In the first game it felt like he was there for the sake of relaying plot elements to you or progressing the story. Again, had nothing against him but I didn't really get connected to him. In ME2 his role is so minor and insignificant that they could had easily cut it from the game without anything really being changed. I never really understood where everyone was getting this fatherly bond from in the first two games.

 

Come ME3 though things changed. I began to see him as more than just 'that guy' and more as his own character. The character felt more evolved to me and I grew to like him more and care about him. Come time the ending I'd be lying if I said I didn't shed some manly tears for Anderson when he passed. Something I wouldn't had done if my only experience with him was the first two games. I'm not sure exactly why but the third game just managed to strike a bond, a connection, when it comes to the Anderson character. Maybe it's because you spend a lot more time actually talking to him and getting to know him in that game. I don't know.

 

Also personally, and this is just my opinion, the worse story arc was the geth. I don't know who wrote it but whoever ruined the Legion character and then the geth as a whole will always be on my shitlist. Yet I see this arc regarded by many as being one of the best. So there you go. Everything has different opinions on the matter. I liked the geth when they were this interesting and different "not quite AI" AI. The whole "we will build our own future" stuff was really interesting to me. They flushed all that in the drain in ME3. Legion radically changes his stance and now wants the reapers aid and they give up the one thing that made them so unique by each becoming a 'true intelligence' at the price of their whole 'we gain complexity by numbers' theme. The more I think about it the more I regret saving them.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I thought it was bizarre the way Udina had been a jerk for the past two games, and then suddenly he's a reasonable guy in ME3. I finally started to cut him some slack... and then he turned out to be working for the enemy. Smh.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Also personally, and this is just my opinion, the worse story arc was the geth. I don't know who wrote it but whoever ruined the Legion character and then the geth as a whole will always be on my shitlist. Yet I see this arc regarded by many as being one of the best. So there you go. Everything has different opinions on the matter. I liked the geth when they were this interesting and different "not quite AI" AI. The whole "we will build our own future" stuff was really interesting to me. They flushed all that in the drain in ME3. Legion radically changes his stance and now wants the reapers aid and they give up the one thing that made them so unique by each becoming a 'true intelligence' at the price of their whole 'we gain complexity by numbers' theme. The more I think about it the more I regret saving them.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Geth arc either. It was one part, as you said, the changed Geth. The second part was their sanctification and the Quarian's vilification. By the end of Rannoch it didn't really feel like much of a choice to make between the Geth and Quarians.

 

I also have similar feelings about the Genophage. It felt too white washed and by the end I was bringing to close a conflict that was different than the one from the previous games. I still enjoyed the arc because of the character moments, well at least the end of the arc (Cerberus was, as usual, a frustration and the bomb part felt like filler of the week material).

[Valmar]

I feel the same way with the genophage as well. I wish there was an alternative way that didn't completely demonize you. There are a lot of issues and arguments to be made for both sides. Yet the narrative basically handles it with one being the good way and the other being the bad, when the subject shouldn't be nearly as black and white. I don't think it would had been radically difficult for them to add a few other ways to decide that outcome. Just combine what they already have without making certain plot tags in your save be required. Like, must Eve and Wrex really be dead for me to sabotage it without shooting Mordin in the back? Maybe give us to the option to convince him or remind him of the risks. Or something. I don't know. Just feels like it should have had more diverse options without basically forcing you to be a 'bad guy'.

 

Mass Effect is one of the few games that came with a lot of gray areas where morality wasn't so certain. The way the cure was handled, imo, painted sabotage far too negatively and showed too much favoritism towards the cure being the only 'good' and 'right' option. Then again maybe I'm just bias because I don't want to kill Wrex and Mordin but still wanted the option to sabotage. I'd prefer regulating the cure to only Wrex's clan and not the entire planet, but I get that not being an option since it'd kinda remove the importance of that entire mission (the shroud).

[Linkenski]

Also personally, and this is just my opinion, the worse story arc was the geth. I don't know who wrote it but whoever ruined the Legion character and then the geth as a whole will always be on my shitlist. Yet I see this arc regarded by many as being one of the best. So there you go. Everything has different opinions on the matter. I liked the geth when they were this interesting and different "not quite AI" AI. The whole "we will build our own future" stuff was really interesting to me. They flushed all that in the drain in ME3. Legion radically changes his stance and now wants the reapers aid and they give up the one thing that made them so unique by each becoming a 'true intelligence' at the price of their whole 'we gain complexity by numbers' theme. The more I think about it the more I regret saving them.

The guy who wrote the Rannoch arc mostly was Patrick Weekes IIRC, but he was not solely responsible for how they handled Legion. Sylvia Feketekuty (writer of Liara and Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC) wrote the Geth Consensus mission, and Chris Hepler wrote Legion, EDI and Thane which was a takeover job becuase all three were written by Chris L'Etoile in Mass Effect 2, and that guy also wrote all the Codex and planet entries in ME1, but he decided to leave after ME2.

 

The actual plot of the Rannoch arc was done by Weekes though, and I don't think he was the one who decided to subvert the perspective on the Geth, ultimately.

[NeonFlux117]

Walters is a GREAT character writer. Not a lead tho. Pretty weak in that area. 

 

Drew K. or bust. 

[Linkenski]

Meh. I agree he's done some great character moments but I wouldn't say he's consistent, not if you look at TIM and Udina in ME3, and he was also not enough Show-don't-tell with Garrus in ME1.

 

But there's one thing he absolutely cannot write and that is kids. There's a term I use often with my friends when we discuss storytelling and movies and etc. "Omniscent child" that refers to when a child is written in a way that makes him seem like he's not behaving accordingly to his age or if he's simply omniscent in the way he talks. A lot of bad writers tend to do this. David Cage did it in Beyond Two Souls, and whoever wrote the movie "Signs" did it as well. It's ever present in ME3 with the child in the intro "You can't help me". I mean, really? Is that really what a child would say in that situation? The child in Foundation #1 is also very poorly written, even if he's forced into being more mature having grown up in a harsh environment. I still didn't buy it.

[angol fear]

 

 

But there's one thing he absolutely cannot write and that is kids. There's a term I use often with my friends when we discuss storytelling and movies and etc. "Omniscent child" that refers to when a child is written in a way that makes him seem like he's not behaving accordingly to his age or if he's simply omniscent in the way he talks. A lot of bad writers tend to do this. David Cage did it in Beyond Two Souls, and whoever wrote the movie "Signs" did it as well. It's ever present in ME3 with the child in the intro "You can't help me". I mean, really? Is that really what a child would say in that situation? The child in Foundation #1 is also very poorly written, even if he's forced into being more mature having grown up in a harsh environment. I still didn't buy it.

 

So writers who don't make realistic children are bad writers? And what about symbolic? And what about the internal logic of the narration? Maybe you're wrong in the way you've read this scene. You can't decide if someone is good or not if you can't understand the aesthetic.

[Farangbaa]

I also have similar feelings about the Genophage. It felt too white washed and by the end I was bringing to close a conflict that was different than the one from the previous games. I still enjoyed the arc because of the character moments, well at least the end of the arc (Cerberus was, as usual, a frustration and the bomb part felt like filler of the week material).

I've never really felt pushed to cure the Genophage because it's so evil and bad. I felt pushed to cure it cause I need the Krogan. The Salarians are wimps who can't fight a head on war, they can only backstab and do pre emptive strikes for which I have no use. True war is not their cup of tea.

The Krogan have war for breakfast.

[n7stormreaver]

So writers who don't make realistic children are bad writers? And what about symbolic? And what about the internal logic of the narration? Maybe you're wrong in the way you've read this scene. You can't decide if someone is good or not if you can't understand the aesthetic.

 

In that case, he's just bad at this thing. Really all the kid arc in Mass Effect 3 is nothing more than annoyance, to say the least. Game would be much, much, much better off without the kid anyway. 

[Linkenski]

To talk about this kid stuff again, I get the idea that the kid was the symbol of hope and the future of humanity, but it just seems way to banal and simple compared to how artistic the game makes it seem. I think most other writers would've found something that their audience would be more shocked over or attached to. The dream sequences work becuase you hear the voices of the dead but they fail because you're chasing this kid over and over and it feels like there's more to it, but the big reveal you're waiting for never happens.

 

And let's not go down the road on the ending again. There's no obvious reason why the Catalyst had to look like the child. Period.

[ImaginaryMatter]

To talk about this kid stuff again, I get the idea that the kid was the symbol of hope and the future of humanity, but it just seems way to banal and simple compared to how artistic the game makes it seem. I think most other writers would've found something that their audience would be more shocked over or attached to. The dream sequences work becuase you hear the voices of the dead but they fail because you're chasing this kid over and over and it feels like there's more to it, but the big reveal you're waiting for never happens.

 

And let's not go down the road on the ending again. There's no obvious reason why the Catalyst had to look like the child. Period.

 

The problem I find with the kid is that his/its handling was so hamfisted (they might as well have put a sign around his neck saying, "I'm a kid. Care about me!") it prevents it from working as the symbol its trying to be. I think its hard for anyone to feel any kind of connection for the kid or worse they feel mild contempt.

 

As for the Catalyst, I think they were going for the mystic space child thing (new beginnings and all that jazz) and they just reused the only child model they had.

[Valmar]

I've never really felt pushed to cure the Genophage because it's so evil and bad. I felt pushed to cure it cause I need the Krogan. The Salarians are wimps who can't fight a head on war, they can only backstab and do pre emptive strikes for which I have no use. True war is not their cup of tea.

The Krogan have war for breakfast.

 

True enough that the krogan are built for war. However this only helps in regards of ground wars. Reaper troops are ground base, yes, but the reapers themselves are all giant war ships. Ground war isn't really the most effective way to beat them. The salarians however, while weak physically and in ground combat, have some of the most advanced ships in citadel space. The krogan are only important because the turians want ground support.

 

 

@Linkenski

 

I, too, dislike how some authors write children. At least the kid in the comic, though, had some excuse. The kid running from Shepard had no excuse given. Just "you can't help me" and then run off in the other direction. Later seen though getting help from a bunch of soldiers on a rooftop. Oh, THEY can help you. I see how it is. How that turn out for you, I wonder. I just headcanon that the kid ran beause my Shep has glowing red scars and eyes. I can see a kid being scared of that, lol.

 

Also if you want a good example of child omniscience take a look at the Ender's Game series. Blows the ME3 kid out of the water.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

True enough that the krogan are built for war. However this only helps in regards of ground wars. Reaper troops are ground base, yes, but the reapers themselves are all giant war ships. Ground war isn't really the most effective way to beat them. The salarians however, while weak physically and in ground combat, have some of the most advanced ships in citadel space. The krogan are only important because the turians want ground support.


@Linkenski

I, too, dislike how some authors write children. At least the kid in the comic, though, had some excuse. The kid running from Shepard had no excuse given. Just "you can't help me" and then run off in the other direction. Later seen though getting help from a bunch of soldiers on a rooftop. Oh, THEY can help you. I see how it is. How that turn out for you, I wonder. I just headcanon that the kid ran beause my Shep has glowing red scars and eyes. I can see a kid being scared of that, lol.

Also if you want a good example of child omniscience take a look at the Ender's Game series. Blows the ME3 kid out of the water.

For this reason, I cannot understand why the war assets seem to prioritize ground troops.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I wasn't into all that "symbolism" and "mystical" crap they tried to put into the game. I looked at the kid as a kid and he sucked as a kid. The fact that Shepard dreamed about the kid constantly was a total annoyance.

 

It was crap like this that led people like me to believe in stuff like Indoctrination Theory, and finally in Bad Writing Theory.

[mybudgee]

Lol

[StarcloudSWG]

Yes. Bad Writing Theory is the most accurate for what happened. Frankly, Mac Walters is at his best when he's writing characters like Garrus. Laid back wisecracking sardonic types.

 

He's not so good at weaving in complex philosophical arguments into a storyline, especially when it has to be done at the last minute both in game development terms and in the actual game's story terms.

[angol fear]

 

He's not so good at weaving in complex philosophical arguments into a storyline, especially when it has to be done at the last minute both in game development terms and in the actual game's story terms.

 

How would you do it, then? And why would you do it this way?