Aller au contenu

Photo

So, Drew Karpyshyn has rejoined BioWare. (Working on TOR for now.)


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
367 réponses à ce sujet

#226
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 661 messages

Yet games are not passive they are interactive so there is also a second narrative being told which is one of the mechanics. The mechanics make us feel a certain way based on what we can and can not do within the gamescape. The mechanics in ME series told a very different narrative, one where reaper enemies where nothing but cannon fodder. Did anyone find reaper ground troops all that scary? The only real success was the banshee. The rest were bullet storage units. Line 'em up and knock 'em down. Nothing in the level design reinforced the idea that reapers can't be defeated conventionally. In fact in the series Shepard and his team kills or is part of the kill against 4 reapers. You never have a mission where the stated goal is X but the situation falls apart so your goal changes from X to just survive. These are reapers they should beat us more times then we beat them yet Shepard NEVER FAILS. The paragon/Renegade "I win" button trivializes any tough decisions. After ME2 prologue you can play the game and NEVER lose a crew member or a member of your squad. All the scripted deaths are of ex-members and the reapers NEVER actually are the cause. All this create a mechanical narrative that says the reapers are push overs.
 


Well, Thessia is a failure. Note that the game conflates failure to retrieve Vendetta, which was Shepard's mission, and failure to save Thessia, which isn't. I think the devs were aware of what you're talking about here and were trying to inject some fail into the storyline for precisely this reason. IIRC the original Thessia plan was even harsher. See also Wing Commander 3, where a massive Confed fail is baked into the midpoint of the story, and the game opens with Angel's capture and the destruction of Blair's carrier.

What would game mechanics that supported the ME3 narrative have looked like? Put another way, could you make a workable TPS/RPG about, say, WW2 from the Japanese side?

#227
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 661 messages

If he had simply said "There were people who did like the endings, but overall they weren't as well received as we had hoped. We overlooked how much people shaped their individual Shepards and how the conclusion to Shepard's story should have reflected that. We learned a lot from the experience and will try to incorporate it into future games" That would have been one thing. Still pretty dumb to make that mistake to begin with, but okay, lesson learned (maybe)

What I was trying to get at upthread is that it sounds like he doesn't believe that -- specifically, he doesn't believe that being able to shape the character should imply shaping a story. You're asking here for something much bigger than saying "we coulda done better with ME3's ending." This would be a fundamental restructuring of the writer's job.

 

Edit: not that there's anything wrong with asking for that, as long as you don't expect to get it.
 

But no, he had to justify the endings by pointing to some random con-goers and saying that they liking the endings is total validation of the decision. Saying that totally trivializes and dismisses the opinions of everyone who didn't like it. It's saying your opinion only matters if it's in agreement with him. And topping it off by saying even now they wouldn't change things really took the cake.

I mean, I get it. You liked the endings. Or at least didn't hate them. But there are a lot of people who do. Saying that only added to the insult..

What's the insult, again? Saying that you understand someone's concerns but that you wouldn't have accomodated them is hardly insulting. Was, say, Ron Moore insulting viewers who complained about the sexual assault scene in the BSG episode "Pegasus" when he said that, while he understood that some people wouldn't or couldn't watch this, this is the way he thought the episode should have gone, and he wouldn't do anything differently, past or future?


  • JamesFaith aime ceci

#228
nightcobra

nightcobra
  • Members
  • 6 206 messages

TOR jedi knight storyline flashbacks

 

super-weapons-super.jpg


  • Tyrannosaurus Rex aime ceci

#229
Elhanan

Elhanan
  • Members
  • 18 449 messages
My condolences on the loss of one their own; Peter Shelus. Sounds like he made a fairly big print in the industry while he was here.

#230
Gothfather

Gothfather
  • Members
  • 1 415 messages

Very well said! And that game mechanic\writing conflict never ends. The problem is - you understand it, many gamers understand it, but writers still do not play their game (read a blog of any of them) and they still do not see the point. They learned that gamers do not like forced deaths of companions or NPC they care about, but still think the reason is just attachment, not the craziness of situation when you kill hundreds of some particular type of mobs only to see your companion (who eats that mobs on breakfast) to be killed by one of that mob with remark "it was a horrible and hopeless fight, the monster was too overwhelming". 

 

I'd say in DAI Heaven fight when you could save some familiar NPC was a step in a right direction - you could do something about it and victory depended of your skills. I only hope it was not an accident but a sane decision based on understanding players frustration.

 

"Well said," you say but i disagree with every point you make. There should have been MORE loss of companions and crew in the ME series NOT less. And every point you make is about story narrative not mechanical narrative. Nothing you say has anything to do with mechanics. It is all story narrative issues.

 

ME3 was the worse game mechanically because all the powers and shooter mechanics made you feel that ANY foe you encounter in the game was dead meat. You SHOULDN'T feel that way. At least you shouldn't feel that way in a game where the theme is trying to defeat an overwhelming force. This is the kind of feeling you SHOULD feel in a KOTOR or SWTOR game. In a Jade Empire game or in the first two Dragon age series, as the overwhelming force in Origins was the blight yet you are part of an order that specializes in destroying the blight and they never lost against the blight. So you should feel more and more powerful and capable of defeating the enemy because it was never themed as a hopeless enterprise and Origins works because you do feel this way.   Power fantasy mechanics have their place in game design they are powerful tools but they have ZERO place in a survival game or a horror game or a game who's theme is malevolent machines that we can't hope to defeat conventionally are here to destroy all advance life in the galaxy and they have been doing this for millions, hell billions of years. i should never feel powerful against the reapers. I should always feel like I and working hard to minimize my losses vs Kicking their ass. Yet in ME3 I never feel like I am rushing to save a handful because I can't save any more due to the fact that the reapers are just too powerful. Nope every priority mission I finish i feel more powerful and more ready to whip out the reapers. Why? because I never fail against the reapers. That is sh!te mechanics for the story at hand. The only sense of loss you get is the people who die on earth when you are not in command. And the emotional dream scenes feel hollow because you are kicking ass and feel no loss every again because of your actions. everyone who dies around you are all fraking dying heroically saving billions in most cases but not all thane just modestly helps save a councillor of all citadel space, the under achiever. :rolleyes: War is ugly and painful and dirty and some much of the death in war is undignified but not anyone around Shepard they are all super duper extra special. 

 

I should feel loss in a game with this theme, I should know the pain of losing crew members, hell the Normandy should have lost people on a regular basis and had new recruits moved in all the time. Why? because we are fighting a war with the most dangerous foe in the galaxy and saying that statement with no hyperbole. Casualties are inevitable in war unless you are a member of the Normandy SR-2. After Me2 prologue the reapers are surprisingly inept against Shepard and crew. No one dies or you can get results where no one dies all the scripted deaths are ex-crew members. The "I win" button allows you to create cost free victories. They are cheap and pathetic events all because of the MECHANICS create a "I win" button. That isn't the writers fault that is a game design fault.

 

It is high time developers stop giving us these "and they live happily ever after endings," with mature titles. And frankly I don't care that a portion of the audience of mature games is adverse to loss. Get over it. Life isn't rainbows and unicorns if you want that sh!te buy children titles. Give me real loss and real tragedy in my ADULT stories. I am not a child stop writing like I am. 


  • Ithurael aime ceci

#231
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 538 messages

Drew was never really an all that good character and video game writer, but he did do overarching storylines better than what we have seen recently from Bioware.

 

Good thing for SWTOR, but quality of writing doesn't really matter all that much when you're in the business of MMO development, as long as it follows the standard bioware format they used so far just being mediocre should leave people pleased.

 

After playing TOR...the quality of writing actually is a big draw in the end.

 

So far I only played two main storylines, but they have been pretty good so far (Bounty Hunter and Sith Inquisitor) overall. But I hear horror stories for the Republic faction...Jedi Knight and Smuggler in particular get criticized a lot from what I understand.



#232
FKA_Servo

FKA_Servo
  • Members
  • 5 605 messages

After playing TOR...the quality of writing actually is a big draw in the end.

 

So far I only played two main storylines, but they have been pretty good so far (Bounty Hunter and Sith Inquisitor) overall. But I hear horror stories for the Republic faction...Jedi Knight and Smuggler in particular get criticized a lot from what I understand.

 

The smuggler was hilarious, honestly. The Jedi Knight was sort of boring, though.

 

Agent, however, is the gold standard - it's mind bogglingly good.



#233
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 538 messages

"Well said," you say but i disagree with every point you make. There should have been MORE loss of companions and crew in the ME series NOT less. And every point you make is about story narrative not mechanical narrative. Nothing you say has anything to do with mechanics. It is all story narrative issues.

 

ME3 was the worse game mechanically because all the powers and shooter mechanics made you feel that ANY foe you encounter in the game was dead meat. You SHOULDN'T feel that way. At least you shouldn't feel that way in a game where the theme is trying to defeat an overwhelming force. This is the kind of feeling you SHOULD feel in a KOTOR or SWTOR game. In a Jade Empire game or in the first two Dragon age series, as the overwhelming force in Origins was the blight yet you are part of an order that specializes in destroying the blight and they never lost against the blight. So you should feel more and more powerful and capable of defeating the enemy because it was never themed as a hopeless enterprise and Origins works because you do feel this way.   Power fantasy mechanics have their place in game design they are powerful tools but they have ZERO place in a survival game or a horror game or a game who's theme is malevolent machines that we can't hope to defeat conventionally are here to destroy all advance life in the galaxy and they have been doing this for millions, hell billions of years. i should never feel powerful against the reapers. I should always feel like I and working hard to minimize my losses vs Kicking their ass. Yet in ME3 I never feel like I and rushing to save a handful because I can't save any more due to the fact that the reapers are just too powerful. Nope every priority mission I finish i feel more powerful and more ready to whip out the reapers. Why? because I never fail against the reapers. That is sh!te mechanics for the story at hand.

 

I should feel loss in a game with this theme, I should know the pain of losing crew members, hell the Normandy should have lost people on a regular basis and had new recruits moved in all the time. Why? because we are fighting a war with the most dangerous foe in the galaxy and saying that statement with no hyperbole. Casualties are inevitable in war unless you are a member of the Normandy SR-2. After Me2 prologue the reapers are surprisingly inept against Shepard and crew. No one dies or you can get results where no one dies. The "I win" button allows you to create cost free victories. They are cheap and pathetic events all because of the MECHANICS create a I win button. That isn't the writers fault that is a game design fault.

 

It is high time developers stop giving us these "and they live happily ever after endings," with mature titles. And frankly I don't care that a portion of the audience of mature games is adverse to loss. Get over it. Life isn't rainbows and unicorns if you want that sh!te by children titles. Give me real loss and real tragedy in my ADULT stories. I am not a child stop writing like I am. 

 

They didn't write it like a child was playing though. In fact, considering how complex the choice at the end of Mass Effect 3, id say they did something smart in making it a big idea in terms of physical and philosophical differences. If that's not mature I don't know what is.

 

Not to mention they connect to your character narratively. The only problem is it is not connected mechanically, and people take offense to that despite the game being about the consequence of your choices. Plus lets face, the fact that players can more or less decide the fate of entire species at certain points is kind of a big deal too. As for your crew, you can avoid deaths sure, but that depends on the player and how they play vs the game mechanics forcing a death on you.

 

As for your mechanics argument, never felt that way when I played it. Yes they were more ingrained with shooting-styled games, but the emphasis on powers and cover, on using tactics on the fly especially on harder difficulties, kind of renders that argument a bit moot id say. You as a player might be skilled enough to beat these odds, but to say they game had no impact based on mechanics is a bit silly id argue.



#234
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 538 messages

The smuggler was hilarious, honestly. The Jedi Knight was sort of boring, though.

 

Agent, however, is the gold standard - it's mind bogglingly good.

 

I am saving Agent for last.

 

Bounty Hunter took a while to get into, but man it had a lot of moments where it just clicked. Sith Inquisitor i loved the first half, from slave to Sith is such a good hook too.



#235
Gothfather

Gothfather
  • Members
  • 1 415 messages

Well, Thessia is a failure. Note that the game conflates failure to retrieve Vendetta, which was Shepard's mission, and failure to save Thessia, which isn't. I think the devs were aware of what you're talking about here and were trying to inject some fail into the storyline for precisely this reason. IIRC the original Thessia plan was even harsher. See also Wing Commander 3, where a massive Confed fail is baked into the midpoint of the story, and the game opens with Angel's capture and the destruction of Blair's carrier.

What would game mechanics that supported the ME3 narrative have looked like? Put another way, could you make a workable TPS/RPG about, say, WW2 from the Japanese side?

 

The main way to make it work is to switch around active powers to be more defensive. I activate x power to stay alive, vs i use x power a poof an enemy dies. There are defensive powers but they are the minority because lets face it killing stuff is cooler. The main way to make the game feel like you are less powerful than the reapers is in level design. You have missions where you are "scripted" to fail in your objective, but the reward is some bit of knowledge vs killing a fraking reaper! You should be doing fighting withdrawals, lots of these, making choices like save a scientist or save civilians. Ordering soldiers into suicidal feints because if you sacrifice these troops more people survive. That is the type of order REAL ground commanders have to make. You sometimes have to order people to die so that others live. Unless your Shepard then you just press the "I win" button. For every victory we make against the reapers we should have taken two steps backward.

 

There should have been situations where we had to "stealth" our way through because the enemy was too powerful. Make us feel weak against the reapers. This type of game is very popular. People like survival games and horror games and these games don't give you the power fantasy. so it isn't impossible to make a game with shooter mechanics where you don't feel powerful. Give us Virmire style choices there is no cost free victory there. Someone dies. It doesn't have to be a binary as Virmire but make us feel the loss of battle. Make the war cost us. In turn give us the odd power fantasy victory, like purging Cerberus from the citadel just never make the reapers on the receiving end of a "Yeah I kicked A$$!" feeling. You should always find fighting the reapers to be difficult and near hopeless. Where a "Dunkirk" result is a victory because you didn't lose all your forces in the defeat against the enemy.

 

But the past is the past. ME:A might be the perfect game for power fantasy mechanics. These mechanics make for excellent gaming experiences but they don't work for everything. With the exception of the last Alien game, pretty much every alien game previous was panned because they all tried to make them into power fantasy shooters. And that really doesn't work with Aliens because the theme of the Alien IP is that you are close to powerless against them. Even in Aliens the second movie it was all about fighting to survive not fighting to kill ass. I simply hope bioware learns that yeah the power fantasy is brilliant to experience in gaming but it isn't an omnitool that can be used in every situation. 


  • AlanC9 aime ceci

#236
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 661 messages

I should feel loss in a game with this theme, I should know the pain of losing crew members, hell the Normandy should have lost people on a regular basis and had new recruits moved in all the time. Why? because we are fighting a war with the most dangerous foe in the galaxy and saying that statement with no hyperbole. Casualties are inevitable in war unless you are a member of the Normandy SR-2

 
So, something like X-COM? Yeah, in theory. In practice, I don't see how we mesh this with the squadmates being RPG characters., with dialogue, etc. It's the ME2 SM problem except bigger.



#237
rashie

rashie
  • Members
  • 910 messages

After playing TOR...the quality of writing actually is a big draw in the end.

 

So far I only played two main storylines, but they have been pretty good so far (Bounty Hunter and Sith Inquisitor) overall. But I hear horror stories for the Republic faction...Jedi Knight and Smuggler in particular get criticized a lot from what I understand.

I definitely had a fun time going on a jedi kneecapping powertrip as a sith warrior, but honestly I prefer the grittier and darker kotor 2 writing style used by Chris Avellone and co in that universe, its a shame they never got a shot at making kotor 3 before Chris Avellone left Obsidian.


  • Ellyria aime ceci

#238
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 538 messages

I definitely had a fun time going on a jedi kneecapping powertrip as a sith warrior, but honestly I prefer the grittier and darker kotor 2 writing style used by Chris Avellone and co in that universe, its a shame they never got a shot at making kotor 3 before Chris Avellone left Obsidian.

 

Oh no question on that.

 

But I got to say TOR is pretty decent overall. Arguably, better written than Knights of the Old Republic.



#239
Gothfather

Gothfather
  • Members
  • 1 415 messages

They didn't write it like a child was playing though. In fact, considering how complex the choice at the end of Mass Effect 3, id say they did something smart in making it a big idea in terms of physical and philosophical differences. If that's not mature I don't know what is.

 

Not to mention they connect to your character narratively. The only problem is it is not connected mechanically, and people take offense to that despite the game being about the consequence of your choices. Plus lets face, the fact that players can more or less decide the fate of entire species at certain points is kind of a big deal too. As for your crew, you can avoid deaths sure, but that depends on the player and how they play vs the game mechanics forcing a death on you.

 

As for your mechanics argument, never felt that way when I played it. Yes they were more ingrained with shooting-styled games, but the emphasis on powers and cover, on using tactics on the fly especially on harder difficulties, kind of renders that argument a bit moot id say. You as a player might be skilled enough to beat these odds, but to say they game had no impact based on mechanics is a bit silly id argue.

 

What isn't mature is the "I win" button that renders all choice pre endings moot. Just press the "i win" button and you don't actually have to make a choice that costs anything. That isn't mature writing. The "I win" button renders consequence of your choices moot, as there are next to none. It creates cost fee victories how is that mature? What consequences are there to the Quarian Geth conflict? The Genophage? Don't cure it and you get the results you want anyway the Krogen are contained so they don't threaten the future and you know that its likely you'll lose their support but it doesn't actually result in anything other than you have less assets that doesn't have any consequence because you have more than enough assets in the game anyway. So what consequences? 

 

Sure whatever you say, the game was so hard that you felt powerless against the reapers. I call BullSh!t. Forcing you to use cover and powers with tactics does nothing to nullify the power fantasy feeling, in fact making you use those powers, tactics and cover means you feel even MORE empowered when you clear the level of enemies not less. Finish a tough fight and you are like "YEAH! Did you see how awesome that was?" I can't see how anyone finishing the game on insanity is feeling unempowered. But hell maybe you are an outlier they always exist, I doubt a large percentage of gamers felt unempowered playing the ME series. But sure keep selling that position.



#240
Gothfather

Gothfather
  • Members
  • 1 415 messages

 
So, something like X-COM? Yeah, in theory. In practice, I don't see how we mesh this with the squadmates being RPG characters., with dialogue, etc. It's the ME2 SM problem except bigger.

You don't have to make squad mates throw away, or have it so they can die in any battle. You simple have to design levels where LOSS is inevitable. Where "victory" is not possible or at least the starting objective isn't possible. Loss isn't bad narratively speaking.

 

Imagine if the love scene in Me1 was on the way to Virmire vs Ilos. Now imagine if the choice wasn't between the two alliance squad mates but between the two possible LI of your character. Do you let your lover you just had sex with die or do you automatically save them condemning the other character to death simply because you are not having sex with them? Do you choose to let your lover die? This is a powerful RP moment and is should have impacts on the story. Lets say your lover lived but you were pragmatic and it was just by chance your love lived had they been at the other location they would have died. But what would your crew think? There might be whispers that you let another crew member die to save your lover. Again great RP moments with ramification especially if the wrote them into me2. You can only get these RP moments with loss. Imagine being on the SR-2 with a picture of you LI and you let them die on Virmire sitting on your desk in ME2. Power RP moments in the game and you only get them with loss.

 

Jenkins dying in Me1 is meaningless because he dies right away but what if he survives Eden prime and dies half way through the game? That would have meaning. There is nothing in the RPG genre that prohibits companion loss. It should be encouraged not feared. The suicide mission should have been impossible to succeed without loss. Hell I think you should have lost at least one member on the ship and at least two more on the base. You should have felt loss and pain. It is a MATURE approach to have loss in a game about war. It is immature to make it appear like if you are just "good" enough you can go through war with no losses.

 

[edit] When I speak about the mechanics i don't mean simply the powers/abilities you have, or how powerful the guns are. I am speaking collectively, how do all the games systems make you feel playing the game? You can design loss and a feeling of not being in total control by making the player's choices impact loss. Virmire was a victory but it never felt like "woot I kicked ass" because you lost a companion. I even recall players writing on the forums asking how you get a result where you don't lose anyone. Making it feel like against hte reapers you never "Win" its always we have a plan and poof the reapers ruin it and we are scrambling to survive. Against Cerberus yeah we kick ass and feel great but against the reapers it should feel like a victory when everyone comes home alive. As I stated earlier you get this with level design more than anything else. Design levels where you can't feel kick ass because you just got your ass kicked but you survived.

 

As I stated previously horror games all work on the premiss that you are not empowered so a game isn't required to make you feel kick ass to be successful. And stealth games CAN (not always) also make you feel unempowered too, forcing you to use stealth vs gun them all down. The power fantasy is not a requirement for RPGs.



#241
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 538 messages

What isn't mature is the "I win" button that renders all choice pre endings moot. Just press the "i win" button and you don't actually have to make a choice that costs anything. That isn't mature writing. The "I win" button renders consequence of your choices moot, as there are next to none. It creates cost fee victories how is that mature? What consequences are there to the Quarian Geth conflict? The Genophage? Don't cure it and you get the results you want anyway the Krogen are contained so they don't threaten the future and you know that its likely you'll lose their support but it doesn't actually result in anything other than you have less assets that don't have any consequence because you have more than enough assets in the game anyway. So what consequences? 

 

Sure whatever you say, the game was so hard that you felt powerless against the reapers. I call BullSh!t. Forcing you to use cover and powers with tactics does nothing to nullify the power fantasy feeling, in fact making you use those powers, tactics and cover means you feel even MORE empowered when you clear the level of enemies not less. I finish a tough fight and you are like "YEAH! Did you see how awesome that was?" I can't see how anyone finishing the game on insanity is feeling unempowered. But hell maybe you are an outlier they always exist, I doubt a large percentage of gamers felt unempowered playing the ME series. But sure keep selling that position.

 

Not really selling anything though, moreso pointing out why your argument is flawed because the ending contradicts that feeling in two ways.

 

What ending did you choose and why for example? What factored into that decision when you made it?

 

And something else to think about too, how powerless did you feel in the ending of Mass Effect 3? How did Shepard feel in that ending?

 

To me, those are not cost-free victories, especially considering what choice you make more or less determines what the future is for the galaxy and how it does change. One further issue, your example with the Krogan makes no sense; if you are looking at the decisions solely as assets, you are missing the point of the consequences behind the narrative arc.

 

The assets are your reward, the buildup and payoff of the arc is the consequence of your actions. Their future is then out of your hands, you just guided them to it.



#242
Amirit

Amirit
  • Members
  • 1 168 messages

"Well said," you say but i disagree with every point you make. There should have been MORE loss of companions and crew in the ME series NOT less. And every point you make is about story narrative not mechanical narrative. Nothing you say has anything to do with mechanics. It is all story narrative issues.

 

Then I failed to explain my point. I was not talking about necessity of less death in the game - not at all. I was talking about deaths not supported mechanically. If you fight one particular type of mob all the time in numbers, you barely notice them already - because the game throws it at you at every corner - making ONE of that mob a super-unbeatable killer who easily kills a companion or suddenly become a serious obstacle to you is game breaking.

 

Not the fact of death of NPC or PC makes many people angry, but the way that death was handled. And that comes with inconsistency between writing and game-mechanics.



#243
Gothfather

Gothfather
  • Members
  • 1 415 messages

Not really selling anything though, moreso pointing out why your argument is flawed because the ending contradicts that feeling in two ways.

 

What ending did you choose and why for example? What factored into that decision when you made it?

 

And something else to think about too, how powerless did you feel in the ending of Mass Effect 3? How did Shepard feel in that ending?

 

To me, those are not cost-free victories, especially considering what choice you make more or less determines what the future is for the galaxy and how it does change. One further issue, your example with the Krogan makes no sense; if you are looking at the decisions solely as assets, you are missing the point of the consequences behind the narrative arc.

 

The assets are your reward, the buildup and payoff of the arc is the consequence of your actions. Their future is then out of your hands, you just guided them to it.

Really?

 

I am talking about the dissonance between the two narratives. You point out that my premiss is flawed and when i show how mechanically there are no consequence you say but there are story consequences. Yeah you are right there are story consequences. So... if mechanically there are no consequences and the mechanical narrative is that everything is pretty much cost free or at the very least consequence free and you feel fraking powerful, that creates a problem BECAUSE the story narrative is telling an entirely different narrative to what you feel from play. How is my premiss wrong? When your counter is that the story narrative disagree with my point about the mechanics narrative? I know they disagree which is the point of my premiss.

 

Each narrative requires closure but it is impossible to give the player closure for both because they are mutually exclusive narratives. Which is why for MOST players the endings feel off, feel like they lack closure because there are two separate narratives in the game that are at cross purposes.

 

As I stated in a previous post....

 

The endings in and of themselves are not bad, in so far as base concepts. Destruction of the threat, Control the threat and pacify the threat.

 

In fact i think only green space magic is a truly horrific ending. Control as an option was foreshadowed as was destruction. Even the starchild fits the genre of a puppet master behind the scenes trope.  The problem was that the theme of the series was overcoming an overwhelming force doesn't work with power fantasy mechanics in a game. The story narrative complimented the theme that all advanced organic life was on the brink of extinction and we needed a miracle to survive. That miracle is Shepard. And even with Shepard our chances are still slim to none. Things are desperate now and getting worse. That is the theme and that is the story narrative we are told time and time again in the series.

 

/snip

 

There is nothing exceptionally wrong with the endings taken as just the conclusion of the story narrative  told through the series. So why are they almost universally panned as crap writing? Because of the conflict between two diametrically opposed narratives in the series or at least in the last two games in the trilogy, it creates a situation where you don't get closure or at least most people are always looking for more and that is because of the conflict.

 

If they gave us a closure for the power fantasy where we kick reaper ass and saved the galaxy the ending would feel like what? That's it? The biggest threat to the galaxy and we just won because what? reasons? It wouldn't give closure to the story narrative that was told in the previous games . So we would have closure for the mechanical narrative but nothing for the story narrative and that would make any closure we had feel off. Just like it feels now, currently we get a decent story narrative closure but nothing for the mechanical narrative and as I just pointed out reversing things doesn't solve the problem.

 

The endings of ME trilogy are fubar because the developers unintentionally created a dynamic that could not be solved just by having the writers write a new ending, you can't write yourself out of this, which is why i don't think the writers are to blame it is as much fault as the other developers as it is the writers. The only way to solve it was to DESIGN the game so the mechanics didn't work at cross purposes with the story narrative. You can't do the retroactively.



#244
JoeTheQuarian

JoeTheQuarian
  • Members
  • 94 messages

Hopefully he'll write a Mass Effect novel to bring us into Andromeda. We need a good ME book after the last one.



#245
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 538 messages

Really?

 

I am talking about the dissonance between the two narratives. You point out that my premiss is flawed and when i show how mechanically there are no consequence you say but there are story consequences. Yeah you are right there are story consequences. So... if mechanically there are no consequences and the mechanical narrative is that everything is pretty much cost free or at the very least consequence free and you feel fraking powerful, that creates a problem BECAUSE the story narrative is telling an entirely different narrative to what you feel from play. How is my premiss wrong? When your counter is that the story narrative disagree with my point about the mechanics narrative? I know they disagree which is the point of my premiss.

 

Each narrative requires closure but it is impossible to give the player closure for both because they are mutually exclusive narratives. Which is why for MOST players the endings feel off, feel like they lack closure because there are two separate narratives in the game that are at cross purposes.

 

As I stated in a previous post....

 

 

There is nothing exceptionally wrong with the endings taken as just the conclusion of the story narrative  told through the series. So why are they almost universally panned as crap writing? Because of the conflict between two diametrically opposed narratives in the series or at least in the last two games in the trilogy, it creates a situation where you don't get closure or at least most people are always looking for more and that is because of the conflict.

 

If they gave us a closure for the power fantasy where we kick reaper ass and saved the galaxy the ending would feel like what? That's it? The biggest threat to the galaxy and we just won because what? reasons? It wouldn't give closure to the story narrative that was told in the previous games . So we would have closure for the mechanical narrative but nothing for the story narrative and that would make any closure we had feel off. Just like it feels now, currently we get a decent story narrative closure but nothing for the mechanical narrative and as I just pointed out reversing things doesn't solve the problem.

 

The endings of ME trilogy are fubar because the developers unintentionally created a dynamic that could not be solved just by having the writers write a new ending, you can't write yourself out of this, which is why i don't think the writers are to blame it is as much fault as the other developers as it is the writers. The only way to solve it was to DESIGN the game so the mechanics didn't work at cross purposes with the story narrative. You can't do the retroactively.

 

See, the narrative is part of the mechanics; it is the aspects of the plot you manipulate through playing the game. You can manipulate it through the choices you make, narrative decisions for an idealistic outcome, a pragmatic outcome, a ruthless one; most of that done internally with your characterization of Shepard or with your own personal style of role-playing.

 

To argue that the narrative is not part of the mechanics, or separated from the combat gameplay, is where the flaw is. Narrative mechanics and choice and consequence is not only part of the game mechanics, but integral to the games design, otherwise the choices would be made for us instead and there would be no need to role-play during the game, it would be a dungeon crawl or rogue-like by design, going from map to map to meet out objectives. That dissonance doesn't exist in the way you describe it because there are costs to your decisions, sometimes big ones depending on your said consequence, as they affect the narrative tone of your game and your in-character experience.

 

The theme of overcoming an unstoppable force is met with an immovable object; the need for change, with Shepard being the one who changes it, is paramount from the first game. Mechanically and narratively speaking, that makes sense right down to the conclusion, where Shepard literally makes the final decision. Even this choice is part of the theme, where we don't really know what our decisions will do for the future, but we make them and hope for the best anyway, because of the reasons we give your character, or the reasons we make through gameplay. 

 

If you played it without all of this in mind though, without delving into the reasons "why" through a character or personal lens, then I can see where you are coming from then. Even so though, Mass Effect has little to do with power fantasy mechanics- that is what Skyrim is all about because you have no restrictions to what you can actually do, through combat or otherwise, forges your own narrative through play. Mass Effect is grounded in a more light-RPG mentality; the narrative and plot take precedence in the game design because it is designed to be linear and character heavy, versus total control of your actions. Combat and powers are easy to use and simple, borrowing from third person shooter gameplay to create something that is more "pick up and play" vs stat-based.

 

 Mass Effect is essentially a  hybrid between Western and Japanese design, a trend we see in a lot of modern RPGs as of late- The Witcher for example, is another that follows this hybridization, as does Dark Souls and Final Fantasy as of late, to a lesser extant. Narrative and plot, how choices and consequences are resolved not just through in-game rewards, but dialogue and reaction to them, is part of the games focus by its very design; they are the mechanics as much as shooting the avenger is. 

 

I truly believe the reason why people were pissed is not due to diametrically opposed narratives, but a combination of not understanding what type of narrative they had to begin with and not being able to control the fate of their character fully; the latter of which is found throughout the entire game, the former which can be confusing if you weren't looking at it. 

 

If what you say is true, then the reason why people are pissed about Mass Effect is because they didn't play it like an actual RPG then; taking those narrative decisions as part of the games mechanics. I really doubt that is the case. 



#246
Morty Smith

Morty Smith
  • Members
  • 2 457 messages

It is high time developers stop giving us these "and they live happily ever after endings," with mature titles. And frankly I don't care that a portion of the audience of mature games is adverse to loss. Get over it. Life isn't rainbows and unicorns if you want that sh!te buy children titles. Give me real loss and real tragedy in my ADULT stories. I am not a child stop writing like I am. 

 

Give that boy his virtual tragedies, BW. He needs to get over it.



#247
RatThing

RatThing
  • Members
  • 584 messages

Somehow I rather want a completely new writer staff for Mass Effect who brings in new ideas and direction to the universe. Karpyshyn I don't really mind though. ME1 was the best written game of the trilogy imo, and the only one where the choices were more or less balanced.



#248
Ahglock

Ahglock
  • Members
  • 3 660 messages

Give that boy his virtual tragedies, BW. He needs to get over it.


I usually associate calls for adult Co tent with pointless shock value. It can be used effectively but rarely is.

#249
Scofield

Scofield
  • Members
  • 583 messages

I liked all his writing (novels) an like the games he been part of, end of the day thats all that matters to me, rightly dont care what anyone else thinks tbh

 

Yip even enjoyed his revan novel alot, go me eh



#250
TevinterMagister

TevinterMagister
  • Members
  • 158 messages

The smuggler was hilarious, honestly. The Jedi Knight was sort of boring, though.

 

Agent, however, is the gold standard - it's mind bogglingly good.

Agreed, I did the mistake of playing Agent first and followed with a Jedi Consular which was sleep inducing. Just terrible, even if the Jedi Shadow which I picked was awesome the storyline killed it for me.