How would you do it, then? And why would you do it this way?
Meh, that's not an appropriate question. For example, i am not a writer, i have no idea how would i do that, or anything, because, again, i am not a writer, but sure as hell, if i did something like Mac Walters did, i would think of it, much.
And probably throw it out of airlock and simply not add philosophical arguments into a storyline, especially when it has to be done at the last minute.
I was starting to like Udina (as a character, not personally) in ME3. In 1 and 2 he was too much of a comic book jerk (someone like than an ambassador?), in 3 he felt like the same character but a human version of him. Then we had the coup to shove him right back to comic book villainI 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.
Some of the writing is still cool. I still liked Zaeed, Aria, parts of TIM. Something is lacking in the direction of their scenes though. I don't think it's Mac's fault. Maybe they lost some team members. There's something more cinematic about how these characters were presented in ME2. I mean, ME2 in general had better character direction. The closeups, the lighting, etc.. Sometimes it's not "what" is written, but how it's presented.
I know what you mean. It's also true, Bioware actually lost their Lead Cinematic Designer Armando Troisi, who designed the idea of "The Agreement" which basically boils down to how the philosophy behind interactive dialogue and the Dialogue Wheel worked in ME2. Troisi left to work on Halo 4 (which is stupid. He was perfect for ME but I guess he didn't think so)
How would I do it? I'd have started that kind of philosophy talk, backed up with in-game examples and missions, back in ME 1. I'd have interwoven it in ME 2 with actual discussions about what it means to be human and how the Lazarus project affected Shepard's view of herself/himself. What it means, philosophically, to 'upgrade' yourself with implants/improved implants. I'd have laid the groundwork for the ending, at the start with Shepard's intro in ME 1.
If I was building towards the sort of ending we saw in Mass Effect 3? I'd have integrated the transhumanist philosophies and arguments WAY earlier and FAR more frequently than a few casual offhanded side conversations in the last game.
Meh, that's not an appropriate question. For example, i am not a writer, i have no idea how would i do that, or anything, because, again, i am not a writer, but sure as hell, if i did something like Mac Walters did, i would think of it, much.
And probably throw it out of airlock and simply not add philosophical arguments into a storyline, especially when it has to be done at the last minute.
Well, you don't have to be a writer to how to write. People here always talk about writing rules, things we can't do in writing, that means that they know how to write. Actually, the "rules" don't exist in writing.
Your point of view on this point is that the philosophical aspect only appears at the last minute, which is wrong. The ending only makes explicit what was implicit in the trilogy. The structure, the themes, the dialogues lead to this ending. To remove that aspect would be a waste. The first time I played Mass Effect 3, I was afraid of a Hollywood's ending, which would be stupid for this game. Bioware went further my expectations : the whole trilogy explains the ending, and the ending explains the whole trilogy, there were details that I didn't notice which make sense thanks to the ending.
How would I do it? I'd have started that kind of philosophy talk, backed up with in-game examples and missions, back in ME 1. I'd have interwoven it in ME 2 with actual discussions about what it means to be human and how the Lazarus project affected Shepard's view of herself/himself. What it means, philosophically, to 'upgrade' yourself with implants/improved implants. I'd have laid the groundwork for the ending, at the start with Shepard's intro in ME 1.
If I was building towards the sort of ending we saw in Mass Effect 3? I'd have integrated the transhumanist philosophies and arguments WAY earlier and FAR more frequently than a few casual offhanded side conversations in the last game.
The problem here is that you read Mass Effect just like Deus Ex. I know that someone on this forum talked a lot about transhumanism and made a lot of people read Mass Effect as if it was Deus Ex. That's totally wrong.
Well, you don't have to be a writer to how to write. People here always talk about writing rules, things we can't do in writing, that means that they know how to write. Actually, the "rules" don't exist in writing.
Your point of view on this point is that the philosophical aspect only appears at the last minute, which is wrong. The ending only makes explicit what was implicit in the trilogy. The structure, the themes, the dialogues lead to this ending. To remove that aspect would be a waste. The first time I played Mass Effect 3, I was afraid of a Hollywood's ending, which would be stupid for this game. Bioware went further my expectations : the whole trilogy explains the ending, and the ending explains the whole trilogy, there were details that I didn't notice which make sense thanks to the ending.
Care to explain?
Well, you don't have to be a writer to how to write. People here always talk about writing rules, things we can't do in writing, that means that they know how to write. Actually, the "rules" don't exist in writing.
Your point of view on this point is that the philosophical aspect only appears at the last minute, which is wrong. The ending only makes explicit what was implicit in the trilogy. The structure, the themes, the dialogues lead to this ending. To remove that aspect would be a waste. The first time I played Mass Effect 3, I was afraid of a Hollywood's ending, which would be stupid for this game. Bioware went further my expectations : the whole trilogy explains the ending, and the ending explains the whole trilogy, there were details that I didn't notice which make sense thanks to the ending.
The problem here is that you read Mass Effect just like Deus Ex. I know that someone on this forum talked a lot about transhumanism and made a lot of people read Mass Effect as if it was Deus Ex. That's totally wrong.
I agree. Mass Effect should *not* have had Deus Ex's ending tacked on at the last minute. It should have had its own ending, one that didn't boil down to three choices paraphrased from another game. But the question wasn't "how would you rewrite Mass Effect to give it its own ending," it was "How would you have written things differently so that the ending we got fits?"
You may feel that it fits, but for many of us, most of us, it does not. The little themes and hints aren't enough. To properly present that ending, there should have been far more conversations about the nature of sapience, free will, the right to decide your own destiny vs. being directed by a power that 'knows better'. The player should have been thinking philosophically *back in the first game* and in the second game, long before reaching the finale of the trilogy. There's too many disconnects between what we experienced in the story (*especially* if peace was made between the quarians and geth) and the Catalyst's blind unquestioning faith in its operating parameters.
I probably wouldn't have written the same story as Mac. Then again it wouldn't have worked in a video game, either.
I've never thought of him as a good writer but he's had some interesting ideas, even though he has a tendency to butcher them sooner or later e.g. turning Cerberus into the Illuminati and magically giving them an army. I certainly don't think he's worse than Drew Karpyshyn.
After Anderson dies, destroy ending with EMS variants plays.
Job done.
Without killing Hippy-bots and, um, Love-bot*
I agree. Mass Effect should *not* have had Deus Ex's ending tacked on at the last minute. It should have had its own ending, one that didn't boil down to three choices paraphrased from another game. But the question wasn't "how would you rewrite Mass Effect to give it its own ending," it was "How would you have written things differently so that the ending we got fits?"
You may feel that it fits, but for many of us, most of us, it does not. The little themes and hints aren't enough. To properly present that ending, there should have been far more conversations about the nature of sapience, free will, the right to decide your own destiny vs. being directed by a power that 'knows better'. The player should have been thinking philosophically *back in the first game* and in the second game, long before reaching the finale of the trilogy. There's too many disconnects between what we experienced in the story (*especially* if peace was made between the quarians and geth) and the Catalyst's blind unquestioning faith in its operating parameters.
Well , actually, the Deus Ex form of the ending is because of the post-modernism aesthetic (which was the base of the writing of the trilogy from the beginning). But you can't say that because it superficially looks like Deus Ex, it's the same thing. It's not paraphrased from another game it's a referenced form, but it's actually totally different. That's post-modernism.
I know that a lot of people feel that it doesn't fit. The problem doesn't come from the game. The disconnection in the end was needed : the catalyst scene is a "high level" perception scene. Casey Hudson said it, and when everyone plays it the first time, it is surprising and yes, there's that feeling of disconnection. When you're in the event and when you take a step back to see the picture, you have to feel a disconnection. Mass Effect has an real important RPG aspect because the player who only experience the story, sees just like shepard 95% of the time. He is in the events and can't see the picture.
For the peace quarian geth it's the same thing : people can't see (or don't want to see) the context of the peace.
Well, on the fact that the player should have been thinking philosophically since the first game, I disagree because you can't do that in the event. Mass Effect work on different level of perception and the trilogy is based on that. The ending doesn't give the answers, only the clues to understand the trilogy.
And philosophical aspect isn't always when people talk and make explicit something. When some philosophers use a story in their book, they can use only the event and never quote any speeches (that's what they do most of the time).
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I know what you mean. It's also true, Bioware actually lost their Lead Cinematic Designer Armando Troisi, who designed the idea of "The Agreement" which basically boils down to how the philosophy behind interactive dialogue and the Dialogue Wheel worked in ME2. Troisi left to work on Halo 4 (which is stupid. He was perfect for ME but I guess he didn't think so)
Interesting. I didn't know that, but I just knew someone talented had left. There's a noticable difference (if you're the type who goes looking for it at least).
Without killing Hippy-bots and, um, Love-bot*
Oh, I'm sure Joker can just buy a new one from somewhere.
I think the series would have been better off had the ending only involved one solution to the Reaper problem (blowing them to kingdom come), but your choices affected the state of the galaxy in the war's aftermath. Basically something similar to DA:O, where the archdemon always dies, but your choices have an impact on the direction the post-Blight world takes.
The Synthesis/transhumanism angle was just a very bad idea. It felt like someone took a poor imitation of a Deus Ex ending and clumsily welded it to Mass Effect. It deserves it's own page on TV Tropes: Frankenending.
It would certainly have made it much easier for the devs to move the series forward if they wished, though even if the reaper threat had a singular conclusion regardless of what you did, Shepard did make some pretty big lasting changes beyond that, like with the geth and the krogan.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I think the series would have been better off had the ending only involved one solution to the Reaper problem (blowing them to kingdom come), but your choices affected the state of the galaxy in the war's aftermath. Basically something similar to DA:O, where the archdemon always dies, but your choices have an impact on the direction the post-Blight world takes.
The Synthesis/transhumanism angle was just a very bad idea. It felt like someone took a poor imitation of a Deus Ex ending and clumsily welded it to Mass Effect. It deserves it's own page on TV Tropes: Frankenending.
That would have been nice at least, just for the sake of having sequels and not killing many possibilities for the franchise.
That would have been nice at least, just for the sake of having sequels and not killing many possibilities for the franchise.
Do you play a game to play sequels of it?
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Do you play a game to play sequels of it?
Not any game. But I play franchises with that expectation in mind, yeah.
Which is how I always viewed Mass Effect. A franchise and a world. More than just one plot or game. It could have been utilized like D&D or Star Wars. A platform for many stories. Instead of just being a more self-contained story like the Matrix. I like both approaches, but I saw more potential in ME at first.
In any case, I hope they make another sci-fi franchise, if this one loses those possibilities. I want the same thing as Dragon Age, more or less.
Do you play a game to play sequels of it?
I don't suppose this would really be relevant if not for the fact that BioWare is making another game, potentially being another sequel.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I don't suppose this would really be relevant if not for the fact that BioWare is making another game, potentially being another sequel.
If it's another sequel, then my mind will be blown.. because the implications would either mean retconning or it all being a dream/joke somehow.
This is why I fear it would be a midquel/prequel. The endings kind of serve as a lid to the omni-sarcophagus.
Do you play a game to play sequels of it?
That certainly matters unless the game is without question, the final game in the series. If there is even the slight possibility of a sequel than I think the writers do need to craft the ending in such a way as to not make that sequel near impossible to pull off.
Well , actually, the Deus Ex form of the ending is because of the post-modernism aesthetic (which was the base of the writing of the trilogy from the beginning). But you can't say that because it superficially looks like Deus Ex, it's the same thing. It's not paraphrased from another game it's a referenced form, but it's actually totally different. That's post-modernism.
I know that a lot of people feel that it doesn't fit. The problem doesn't come from the game. The disconnection in the end was needed : the catalyst scene is a "high level" perception scene. Casey Hudson said it, and when everyone plays it the first time, it is surprising and yes, there's that feeling of disconnection. When you're in the event and when you take a step back to see the picture, you have to feel a disconnection. Mass Effect has an real important RPG aspect because the player who only experience the story, sees just like shepard 95% of the time. He is in the events and can't see the picture.
For the peace quarian geth it's the same thing : people can't see (or don't want to see) the context of the peace.
Well, on the fact that the player should have been thinking philosophically since the first game, I disagree because you can't do that in the event. Mass Effect work on different level of perception and the trilogy is based on that. The ending doesn't give the answers, only the clues to understand the trilogy.
And philosophical aspect isn't always when people talk and make explicit something. When some philosophers use a story in their book, they can use only the event and never quote any speeches (that's what they do most of the time).
Is this a post supporting the Indoctrination Theory?
Retour en haut