165 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

That's really not fair though.  

 

From what I understand of Destiny, and full disclosure here, I haven't played it.  Destiny had a kick ass story.  It's just somebody, not sure who...  But somebody came in there and ripped it all out.  Now, is this guy up to ME standards?  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The story for Destiny is terrible. The main protagonist and his purpose are hollow and don't make sense. You are thrown into fighting various threats without any purpose or true reason. You won't even understand half of what is going on unless you read lore and codex entries on Bungie's website. It's terribly executed and an absolute mess. It's possible it's story had a similar fate as Halo 2 with story being cut or modified. The lead writer did leave before the game was finished, so perhaps that was inner turbulence in the studio. Either way, terrible story.

 

I have to assume that they just didn't know where to go with it just yet, but in any case, that seems like a likely reason for how hollow Destiny's actual story content feels. It's practically nothing for the few hours of actual story mission that's in there.

Bungie has never been good at storytelling and Destiny just proves it once again. They have no idea what they are doing and have the writing capacity of a 5-year-old. "Humanity finds an alien relic on Mars, it creates a golden age, Humanity advances and cheers. Then alien relic's old enemies find it and destroy Humanity. Old enemy is called 'The Darkness' and a corpse revived to be a 'Guardian' with his 'Ghost' must fight back 'The Darkness.'" Halo's story under Bungie was terrible, but at least it was Halo and had Master Chief. Destiny is just trash.

 

Destiny probably did have a great story, it wound up being a story about horde mode sadly. This is coming from a guy who can sink hours into Horde mode in gears on a sunday.

 

We won't get Shepard back at any point in the game, it would kill off the atmosphere and any connection we have to the new title.

Horde mode? I don't remember any Horde mode in the Destiny I played. You either participated in the main story missions, free-roam doing dailies, Strikes, or the Crucible. There was no "horde" or "firefight." No, Destiny never had a great story either. Peter Dinklage's talent was completely wasted. It's funny because people will criticize his VO for ruining the story. On the contrary, he had to work with absolute trash that wasn't redeemable.

 

Halo is not much more than Call of Duty in a sci-fi setting. It doesn't compare to Mass Effect at all. I don't see this as good news, but he's only one guy on a big team and for all we know, he might have been one of the best people on the Halo 4 team.  

This is a ridiculous assertion. Even though Bungie was terrible at storytelling, they actually were the ones responsible for making first person shooters relevant and popular on consoles. Halo CE was also the first FPS to have a decent enough story and cast of characters where it was more than just a "run and gun" like FPS games before it. Halo revolutionized the FPS and created the standard multiplayer and matchmaking every other game has copied sense. CoD is nothing but set pieces and explosions. There is no story at all, versus Halo which just had a terrible story.

 

Either way, Halo 4 wasn't developed by Bungie thankfully and the story actually was great unlike its predecessors. It had depth, complexity, deep character development, and kept you on your toes to the very end. The writing process to even become a member of the writing team for a BioWare game is arduous and difficult. The fact Shierf was able to become the lead writer for MENext should give you an indication of his writing capability.

[Fedi.St]

It just occurred to  me that Halo was set somewhere around 26th century.

 

Mass Effect Reaper war ended in late 22nd century.

 

So if a post ME3 timeline were to be established would be around somewhere  early 24th 25th century with a lot of cannon stories (similar to genophage new alien species contacts wars between citadel space  races etc) in the between. Thus the lead writer must have a sense of futuristic and complex space events.

 

If indeed   that's the case it would be logical that someone like halo's lear writer would join the party. Someone who took an already established trilogy and reboot it.

[Revan Reborn]

It just occurred to  me that Halo was set somewhere around 26th century.

 

Mass Effect Reaper war ended in late 22nd century.

 

So if a post ME3 timeline were to be established would be around somewhere  early 24th 25th century with a lot of cannon stories (similar to genophage new alien species contacts wars between citadel space  races etc) in the between. Thus the lead writer must have a sense of futuristic and complex space events.

 

If indeed   that's the case it would be logical that someone like halo's lear writer would join the party. Someone who took an already established trilogy and reboot it.

Well I think he was an optimal choice for BioWare simply because he is familiar with science fiction and he has lead a writing team on a high-profile AAA video game before. That means he has experience and he understands what kinds of experiences work and are popular in the genre. He's also an asset for BioWare because he is an outside source. He isn't like Mac Walters who has been with Mass Effect from the very beginning. He is an outsider, and likely was a fan of the original Mass Effect trilogy. This outside perspective will allow him to take Mass Effect in directions BioWare likely would have never been able to. Change is good and I believe he will make an experience vastly different from the Shepard trilogy, while Mac Walters makes sure that it is consistent and foreseeable in the Mass Effect universe.

[Riven326]

The story for Destiny is terrible.

There is no story.

[Revan Reborn]

There is no story.

There technically is, it's just so bad that there may as well not be a story.

[AdmiralBoneToPic]

Bungie was terrible at storytelling, they actually were the ones responsible for making first person shooters relevant and popular on consoles.

 

Rare & Goldeneye 64 say hi.

[CroGamer002]

There technically is, it's just so bad that there may as well not be a story.

It's not badly written, it just that game refused to tell a story.

[Revan Reborn]

Rare & Goldeneye 64 say hi.

While Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are classics, they did not make shooters popular on consoles. Since the creation of the FPS with Wolfenstein and its popularity exploding with Doom, shooters have always been a PC-centric genre. It's also worth noting that Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were one hit wonders and nothing came of them after that. They didn't change the industry.

 

Halo CE, on the other hand, changed everything. This is partially because the console market was dominated by Japanese companies, and they don't particularly care for shooters. Certainly most of the titles on N64, Gamecube, PS One, and PS2 were not shooters. It wasn't until Halo CE with the original Xbox that we finally had an actual game changer. Not only did it make the Xbox relevant, but it brought massive worlds to shooters instead of the traditional corridor, it brought vehicles and storytelling, and it brought an incredibly addictive split screen multiplayer. Halo 2 would further innovate on Halo CE by making online matchmaking, clans, level progression, customization, and other things we take for granted today a standard.

 

Halo was a game changer on console. If not for Bungie (whose beginnings were on PC as well), it's unlikely juggernauts such as CoD would have ever become popular and Battlefield would have likely stuck with PC indefinitely. Halo proved console gamers can love shooters.

 

It's not badly written, it just that game refused to tell a story.

How about this, Bungie doesn't know how to tell a story? However you want to look at it, you should not go into the main campaign expecting any substance or quality writing. The dialogue and voice acting is so mundane and uninspiring that I'm not even sure how Bungie thought what they were releasing was a quality product.

[Riven326]

They blatantly lied about it though. Bungie said Destiny would have this incredible story and what not. Maybe it did at some point, but not when the game shipped. They failed to mention that to their customers.

[Revan Reborn]

They blatantly lied about it though. Bungie said Destiny would have this incredible story and what not. Maybe it did at some point, but not when the game shipped. They failed to mention that to their customers.

There were actually concerns the year before about the quality of Destiny's story. In fact, the lead writer for Bungie actually left the studio before the game was complete. This was an early sign that there may have been some turbulence or disagreements over execution of the story. It also didn't help that Peter Dinklage's amazing talents were poorly used and wasted on playing a poor rip-off of Cortana.

 

Had Destiny been in the Halo universe instead, I believe it may have had a very different outcome. It really was a mistake for Bungie to do another sci-fi shooter. Rarely do you strike lightning once. You almost never do it a second time. Bungie's not really hurting though as their name is selling Destiny as it is. The game might be mediocre, but their legacy and the marketing that went to promote it has made it a financial success. Activision is just swimming in money.

[fyz306903]

Well I think he was an optimal choice for BioWare simply because he is familiar with science fiction and he has lead a writing team on a high-profile AAA video game before. That means he has experience and he understands what kinds of experiences work and are popular in the genre. He's also an asset for BioWare because he is an outside source. He isn't like Mac Walters who has been with Mass Effect from the very beginning. He is an outsider, and likely was a fan of the original Mass Effect trilogy. This outside perspective will allow him to take Mass Effect in directions BioWare likely would have never been able to. Change is good and I believe he will make an experience vastly different from the Shepard trilogy, while Mac Walters makes sure that it is consistent and foreseeable in the Mass Effect universe.

 

That;s what I'm pleased about. Bioware Montreal are a relatively new dev team, so It'll be nice to see their 'take' on what seems to be a Mass Effect spin-off game/trilogy. Anyway, some people from the original trilogy will be there to say 'that shouldn't be there' and 'that guy should sound more like this' etc. As long as it has a few nods to past games and characters (possibly a few cameos), addresses the endings in some way, and (tough one, this) give all the old races at least one appearance, I'll be happy.  

[lastpawn]

Judging from recent ME and DA games, the current writing team consists of some highly talented and some only average writers. 

 

I've never played Halo 4 but I assume he must have impressed some quality writers to land the job. I look forward to what he does.

[Kabooooom]

I've only recently really started getting into the Halo lore, and I've got to say - while at first I disliked Halo 4, I've changed my mind. I am impressed by how the story of the games compliments and adopts plot points in the extended universe, and how expertly they seem to have worked Halo 4 into pre-existing canon.

***probable spoilers for the Reclaimer trilogy ahead***

I'm also impressed by how the writing, which was never planned from the start, has adopted every single plot subtlety from prior titles and worked it into an overarching framework. For example, it is abundantly clear at this point that the Master Chief has been imprinted with the geas of Bornstellar, and thus he is essentially the IsoDidact. This dichotomy of Didact ("killed" twice, in game and in comics, probably still not dead) and IsoDidact will no doubt play a role in Halo 5 as it was central to the plot of the books. The writing team seems to have retroactively incorporated this into the story, which makes subtle dialogue like Guilty Spark's comments to the Chief in H1 where he mistakes him for the IsoDidact suddenly become deep and meaningful, rather than the ramblings of an AI going rampant (which was no doubt initially the reason for writing those lines).

In summary, the writers of Halo made it up as they went along - just like the writers of ME. But unlike ME, they masterfully wove the story into prior lore. So I'm not worried at all by this news anymore.

[Riven326]

Judging from recent ME and DA games, the current writing team consists of some highly talented and some only average writers. 

 

I've never played Halo 4 but I assume he must have impressed some quality writers to land the job. I look forward to what he does.

I think it was well done. There were some that complained that the tone was too serious for a Halo game. But the books are more serious and far more militaristic than the games. Halo 4 was closer to the books and I think that was for the best.

[lastpawn]

I think it was well done. There were some that complained that the tone was too serious for a Halo game. But the books are more serious and far more militaristic than the games. Halo 4 was closer to the books and I think that was for the best.

 

Than I can only assume it'll work itself out.

 

When I look at ME games... ME2 had a plot that can be summarized in a simple sentence: You get some people together and end the Collectors. ME3's plot was essentially similar: get some armies together and end the Reapers.

 

Dragon Age Inquisition seems similar: Get support and end the Breach. I guess Bioware likes to go with what works.

 

So I'm not worried about the plot writing... I don't think it's getting worse. I'm looking forward to what a new guy can do.

[Faerlyte]

I was not impressed by Halo 4 in general, and I've been playing that series since the beginning. The writing was not overwhelming. Cortana was almost unbearable. 

 

But hey, I've never liked Mass Effect's (or Dragon Age's) plot-related writing either so more of the same probably won't deter me from playing the game. 

[Revan Reborn]

Than I can only assume it'll work itself out.

 

When I look at ME games... ME2 had a plot that can be summarized in a simple sentence: You get some people together and end the Collectors. ME3's plot was essentially similar: get some armies together and end the Reapers.

 

Dragon Age Inquisition seems similar: Get support and end the Breach. I guess Bioware likes to go with what works.

 

So I'm not worried about the plot writing... I don't think it's getting worse. I'm looking forward to what a new guy can do.

When you put it like that, you make the storytelling seem so... uninteresting.

 

I think it's fair to say that plot and major themes of BioWare games have always been rather straightforward, and I believe that's intentional. You don't want to make an experience that is too complex as it will go over the audience's head (like the ME3 ending). Rather, you want to make something that is accessible and easily digestible, while having its own unique spin to keep it different and entertaining.

 

Certainly, ME2 was about building a team to go on a "suicide mission," but it was a much darker story about relationships and how far Shepard would go even when the entire galaxy was against him. ME3 was more of a psychological drama and the toll the Reaper threat was taking on Shepard and whether he could pull off the impossible. I can't judge DAI since I haven't played it yet, but BioWare really wanted to bring that idea of "leading your own organization" to life.

 

We'll have to see where the new direction of MENext goes, as this will be the first time that a BioWare game's writing hasn't been led by an established BioWare writer. I wouldn't mind if more complexities were brought into the experience, as I personally enjoyed the complexities of KotOR II more than the more typical journey of KotOR I. Admittedly, stories that tend to be more complex also tend to be less appealing to the casual audience, so compromises have to be made.

[Kabooooom]

I was not impressed by Halo 4 in general, and I've been playing that series since the beginning. The writing was not overwhelming. Cortana was almost unbearable.

But hey, I've never liked Mass Effect's (or Dragon Age's) plot-related writing either so more of the same probably won't deter me from playing the game.

Halo4 mostly served a single purpose: To bridge the story from the prior trilogy to the books, and to set the stage for the big reveal in Halo5 (I assume, potentially 6) of Master Chief's imprint/geas (read my above post if you want to be spoiled) and his acceptance of his destiny.

They had a major difficulty - make a story that appealed to both the casual FPS mindless gamer Halo fan and those that delve deeply into the lore of Halo, ie the hardcore fans. They stumbled a bit, but in that I think they succeeded. The gameplay issues made the game merely average instead of epic.

[lastpawn]

When you put it like that, you make the storytelling seem so... uninteresting.

 

I think it's fair to say that plot and major themes of BioWare games have always been rather straightforward, and I believe that's intentional. You don't want to make an experience that is too complex as it will go over the audience's head (like the ME3 ending). Rather, you want to make something that is accessible and easily digestible, while having its own unique spin to keep it different and entertaining.

 

Certainly, ME2 was about building a team to go on a "suicide mission," but it was a much darker story about relationships and how far Shepard would go even when the entire galaxy was against him. ME3 was more of a psychological drama and the toll the Reaper threat was taking on Shepard and whether he could pull off the impossible. I can't judge DAI since I haven't played it yet, but BioWare really wanted to bring that idea of "leading your own organization" to life.

 

We'll have to see where the new direction of MENext goes, as this will be the first time that a BioWare game's writing hasn't been led by an established BioWare writer. I wouldn't mind if more complexities were brought into the experience, as I personally enjoyed the complexities of KotOR II more than the more typical journey of KotOR I. Admittedly, stories that tend to be more complex also tend to be less appealing to the casual audience, so compromises have to be made.

 

I too enjoy more complex stories, but they're both difficult to pull of well and there's probably little payoff. 

 

Still I don't think I'm being unfair. I also don't have anything against themes of leadership and camaraderie. It plays to Bioware's strength, namely the excellent character writers they have.

 

I was just sayin'... If anything, I suspect we'll be pleasantly surprised by the overarching plot of the next ME game.

 

Edit: A minor nitpick, probably, but I disagree that ME3 was a psychological drama in any real sense. I replayed the game recently and that just wasn't there for me. There were admittedly a few scenes. The most jarring example was what happened in Thessia and how Spehard handled it. But it was forced, and I was never able to take it seriously (the enemy writing troll emails, ok...). Maybe you're right, as I did feel bad for Liara. Maybe the psychological drama angle just didn't work for me personally.

[Revan Reborn]

I too enjoy more complex stories, but they're both difficult to pull of well and there's probably little payoff. 

 

Still I don't think I'm being unfair. I also don't have anything against themes of leadership and camaraderie. It plays to Bioware's strength, namely the excellent character writers they have.

 

I was just sayin'... If anything, I suspect we'll be pleasantly surprised by the overarching plot of the next ME game.

 

Edit: A minor nitpick, probably, but I disagree that ME3 was a psychological drama in any real sense. I replayed the game recently and that just wasn't there for me. There were admittedly a few scenes. The most jarring example was what happened in Thessia and how Spehard handled it. But it was forced, and I was never able to take it seriously (the enemy writing troll emails, ok...). Maybe you're right, as I did feel bad for Liara. Maybe the psychological drama angle just didn't work for me personally.

I think a psychological drama was what BioWare was shooting for, but I believe they had mixed results with ME3. As you indicated, some aspects of the storytelling where brilliant, while others were amateurish and ineffective in execution. Certainly BioWare was trying to give us this perception that we are seeing Shepard falling apart by the seams. He seems to be eliciting signs of Indoctrination through his nightmares and hallucinations of a child. He is more doubtful about his capabilities and coming through on this mission more so than ever before.

 

All in all, I felt that this was really an opportunity for BioWare to explore Shepard's character and break him down while rebuilding him. It was an interesting experience, and I believe it worked to an extent, but it was by no means perfect or perhaps what BioWare intended. Personally though, I enjoyed a more grounded Shepard rather than the unbreakable idealist and optimist who could always do the impossible and never lacked any confidence to get the job done from the two previous installments. I don't mind being the hero that saves the day, but I prefer it to be more of a struggle, both on a overarching scale and a personal one. I personally tend to appreciate that kind of storytelling more.

[Riven326]

Mixed results? That's putting it mildly... lol.

[Revan Reborn]

Mixed results? That's putting it mildly... lol.

I personally enjoyed Mass Effect 3 quite a bit. I thought BioWare did a great job of escalating the tensions and truly giving this aura of a galaxy-wide war. Initially after my first playthrough, without the extended cut, I was admittedly perplexed by how the game ended. After the EC as well as the various DLCs, and re-examining characters, plots, and the story through subsequent playthroughs, my perception and views on the ending changed quite substantially. There were a lot more complexities and subtleties interwoven that were not easily discernible on one's first experience of the story.

 

I could finally understand where BioWare was coming from to a much larger extent, thus as a result I was able to appreciate it. That certainly isn't the case with many, but I personally found ME3 to overall be a great game. My only real criticism, which isn't story-related at all, was the necessity of having 100% galactic readiness in multiplayer in order to obtain the perfect ending (which apparently was patched after I had already beaten the game the first time). The multiplayer was decent, but the mindless grind and excessive amount of hours needed in order to obtain a secret teaser at the end was not my idea of fun or an award.

[SimonTheFrog]

I think a psychological drama was what BioWare was shooting for, but I believe they had mixed results with ME3. As you indicated, some aspects of the storytelling where brilliant, while others were amateurish and ineffective in execution. Certainly BioWare was trying to give us this perception that we are seeing Shepard falling apart by the seams. He seems to be eliciting signs of Indoctrination through his nightmares and hallucinations of a child. He is more doubtful about his capabilities and coming through on this mission more so than ever before.

 

All in all, I felt that this was really an opportunity for BioWare to explore Shepard's character and break him down while rebuilding him. It was an interesting experience, and I believe it worked to an extent, but it was by no means perfect or perhaps what BioWare intended. Personally though, I enjoyed a more grounded Shepard rather than the unbreakable idealist and optimist who could always do the impossible and never lacked any confidence to get the job done from the two previous installments. I don't mind being the hero that saves the day, but I prefer it to be more of a struggle, both on a overarching scale and a personal one. I personally tend to appreciate that kind of storytelling more.

 

Yes, interesting idea, i agree.

 

I don't think it worked at all, though.

 

One problem was for me that all versions of "Shep" had the same nightmares. I would have thought that a Renegade Shep has other inner conflicts than a Paragon one. For a game that tries to sell a story which is influenced by players choice, the character development of the protagonist was unified and forced onto the player right up to the very end where no decision Shep ever made mattered.

I think there is a fundamental game design issue here: what is it that i want that the player does (or can do) and can experience. They didn't have a clear approach here or at least gave very mixed signals.

 

The other problem was that they didn't go anywhere with this. Yes, i got as a player that my Shep is traumatized and has difficulties dealing with all that death and destruction. But why not do anything with that? Why tell the player: "your Shep is hurting on the inside" if then nothing else comes out of this?!

That's also true for the whole "death" scene in ME2. Why would you put something like that in and then not use it at all? It get mentioned once or twice for a cool one-liner but apart from that nothing.

I just hope that the new guy makes sure that the major plot points are not silly. That'll be awesome.

[Revan Reborn]

Yes, interesting idea, i agree.

 

I don't think it worked at all, though.

 

One problem was for me that all versions of "Shep" had the same nightmares. I would have thought that a Renegade Shep has other inner conflicts than a Paragon one. For a game that tries to sell a story which is influenced by players choice, the character development of the protagonist was unified and forced onto the player right up to the very end where no decision Shep ever made mattered.

I think there is a fundamental game design issue here: what is it that i want that the player does (or can do) and can experience. They didn't have a clear approach here or at least gave very mixed signals.

 

The other problem was that they didn't go anywhere with this. Yes, i got as a player that my Shep is traumatized and has difficulties dealing with all that death and destruction. But why not do anything with that? Why tell the player: "your Shep is hurting on the inside" if then nothing else comes out of this?!

That's also true for the whole "death" scene in ME2. Why would you put something like that in and then not use it at all? It get mentioned once or twice for a cool one-liner but apart from that nothing.

I just hope that the new guy makes sure that the major plot points are not silly. That'll be awesome.

Well this goes back to my point that we really never had control over Shepard. He was an established character that we were able to have some control over, but much less control than protagonists from Dragon Age (besides DA2) or Knights of the Old Republic. We were just along for the ride and we could determine if he was a good guy (Paragon) or a bad ass (Renegade). Regardless of which approach to Shepard you took, it was inevitably going to lead to the same place.

 

I think the issue is many had a false sense of ownership over the character. We never really defined who Shepard was. Yes, we were able to make some major choices (council lives or dies, anderson or udina becomes a council member, destroy the collector base or not, etc.), but Shepard's goal was always to destroy the Reapers (TIM says this, Anderson, Hackett, even Shepard himself) since ME1.

 

One reason I'm enjoying DAI thus far is because the Inquisitor is a blank slate, unlike Shepard. Besides a basic origin, BioWare didn't give the Inquisitor determined personalities. We have a handful of choices we choose that can result in a large variety of different Inquisitors. We aren't just choosing between renegade/paragon or diplomacy/aggressive/humorous. That being said, the Inquisitor (at least initially) isn't as compelling as Shepard because he has less to offer. It's a trade-off. Should players be able to have more control or should the main protagonist have more of a personality for a better story?

 

I think the other minor misstep on BioWare's part was giving players false impressions. They honestly did the fan base a disservice by allowing everybody to live through the Suicide Mission in ME2. It was unrealistic and gave too much power and control to the player. The same essentially happened in ME1. As a result, people were just expecting that if they were a completionist, they could achieve the "happy ending" where everybody lives and the credits roll with Shepard performing his famous shuffle. That's what many wanted, to have complete control to determine their ending, and I believe that was BioWare's only misstep.

 

I personally preferred the approach in ME3 that there were going to be sacrifices, given the superiority of the Reapers. BioWare should have just addressed that approach much earlier on than placing this final, game changing moral dilemma that was going to affect the fabric of the entire galaxy forever. What was ironic is that the final decision of ME3 really allows people to actually make a choice rather than choosing a paragon/renegade option like ever other choice in the three games. I think that bothered people greatly because the ending was so morally ambiguous and it wasn't clear what was "right" or "wrong." That was the point BioWare was trying to make though, which I liked, but admittedly Mass Effect had always been largely black and white because of the morality system.

 

Long story short, I don't believe BioWare made a mistake directly with how ME3's ending occurred. I believe they made a mistake in giving people illusory choices of paragon/renegade and then making the final choice in the game unlike anything they had encountered. It was arguably a curve ball, and many reacted poorly to it.

[o Ventus]

I'm okay with this. As far as plots go, Halo 4 had the best of the main series. Its biggest failing was the relationship between Chief and Cortana. It was handled well enough taken on its own merits, but the previous games would lead you to believe that Cortana was little more than a voice in Chief's head who can open doors, instead of the central figure she is. Their chemistry is more tied in with the extended universe (as well as the main plot itself since a trilogy of novels was written to provide backstory and context to what happens in 4) rather the previous games.