367 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

While I'm happy he's back with Bioware I don't think he'll be joining the ME team anytime soon, also while did bring a lot of brilliant things to the ME series I think people are giving him way too much credit.

[FKA_Servo]

That's interesting news. Perhaps he can continue to make "canon" Revan a disappointment to everyone.

 

While I'm happy he's back with Bioware I don't think he'll be joining the ME team anytime soon, also while did bring a lot of brilliant things to the ME series I think people are giving him way too much credit.

 

This is probably true, however Mac Walters.

[LinksOcarina]

No, Vigil serves as both a Red herring and a Anagnorisis. If you're unfamiliar with them,

Anagnorisis:

Anagnorisis, or discovery, is the protagonist's sudden recognition of their own or another character's true identity or nature. Through this technique, previously unforeseen character information is revealed. A notable example of anagnorisis occurs in Oedipus Rex: Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother in ignorance, learning the truth only toward the climax of the play. The earliest use of this device as a twist ending in a murder mystery was in "The Three Apples", a medieval Arabian Nights tale, where the protagonist Ja'far ibn Yahya discovers by chance a key item towards the end of the story that reveals the culprit behind the murder to be his own slave all along.

 

Red herring:

A red herring is a false clue intended to lead investigators toward an incorrect solution. This device usually appears in detective novels and mystery fiction. The red herring is a type of misdirection, a device intended to distract the protagonist, and by extension the reader, away from the correct answer or from the site of pertinent clues or action. The Indian murder mystery film Gupt: The Hidden Truth cast many veteran actors who had usually played villainous roles in previous Indian films as red herrings in this film to deceive the audience into suspecting them. In the bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, the misdeeds of a key character named "Bishop Aringarosa" draw attention away from the true master villain ("Aringarosa" literally translates as "red herring"). Agatha Christie's classic And Then There Were None is another famous example, and includes the term as well in a murder ploy where the intended victims are made to guess that one of them will be killed through an act of treachery. A red herring can also be used as a form of false foreshadowing.

 

The red herring is how the reapers tricked the organics about the truth about the Protheans and The Mass Relays and the Anagnorisis was literally what Vigil did. Vigil was a device, Not a character. The human reaper, And many of ME2's elements were part of the scrapped grand design of Drew. So, There goes.

Tweaking the lore within the lore is something, And tweaking the lore outside the lore is a whole another thing. That's change and evolution and the other is called "Inconsistency". Just because some don't notice the big grand picture doesn't mean that it is not actually there.

 

I have heard of those.

 

They are not applicable in the end. Vigil is certainly a Deus Ex Machina at the very least, or else one can make a case that the Catalyst is an Anagnonsis. Shepards death is a Deus Ex Machina as well. We can infer aspects of a red herring or a anagnonsis to it as possible traits, and make that argument, but they are not applicable in the end id say. 

 

That said, there is no difference when you "tweak the lore" because then what determines what is in and outside of the lore? We know the truth of the matter regarding Mass Effect and how it was written, but all of the lore tweaks, in and out of it (change vs inconsistency) is not only subjective, but also wholly dependent on interpretation of the matter.

 

I guess the point is one mans change is another mans inconsistency if we really want to go down that road. Regardless, I consider this an admittance to lore being fluid, so chalk one up there.

 

It also has little to do with the big picture...

[AlanC9]

After the Conduit, what was Shepard ever unqiuely qualified for that another PC couldn't have been... or that couldn't have been written with ease to accept another PC? Nothing- because Shepard's uniqueness stopped being anything but fame after ME1.

As noted in the ME2 prologue. I'm not sure whether to file this under lampshading, misdirection, or the return of the repressed, since while they talk about Shepard's iconic status, that's of almost no actual use in ME2. (Though I doubt a Jacob- or Miranda-commanded SR-2 would be permitted to dock at the Citadel; as bad as their security is, would a private warship bearing insignia of a known terrorist organization be well-received?)

ME3 makes this relevant again, and Shepard's "why me?" dialogue with Hackett handles the issue in a non-crazy manner. But yeah, there's nothing here that would need more than a paragraph or two to get around.

[CronoDragoon]

When it comes down to it, I don't think the uproar was about writing quality or an appreciation for structure and design. The previous two ME games convinced me most fans care about the feels far more than the appreciation for design implications. So unless the Dark Energy theory radically changed the feels- and I don't see why it would have changed the various other design flaws that produced those feels- I think it's a bit of a red herring to chase after.

 
Ah, but the Dark Energy ending would have radically changed the feels:
 

The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."

http://www.gamewatch...ffect-3-endings

 

So basically, this is the ultimate punting the consequences scenario. Players can just kill the Reapers and not worry about the heat death of the universe because it'll happen off-screen after the game ends if it happens at all. 

[Vapaa]

Ah, but the Dark Energy ending would have radically changed the feels:
 

http://www.gamewatch...ffect-3-endings
 
So basically, this is the ultimate punting the consequences scenario. Players can just kill the Reapers and not worry about the heat death of the universe because it'll happen off-screen after the game ends if it happens at all.

The fundamental logical flaws of the DE plot would've made these choices so unfair, the fanbase uproar would've been legendary.

[Gothfather]

I've raised this before, but I think one of the better things that they could have done to improve the series was to replace Sheaprd as the PC in each game. If the series was treated like a connected franchise (like Dragon Age) rather than judged as the trilogy it claims to be (Shepard's story), it'd hold up a lot better.

 

ME2's a great example for the reasons you mention. Imagine if, say, Jacob had been the PC: he was for that little phone game, so they might have dabbled with it. If Jacob had been TIM's choice to lead a suicide mission... what would have changed? The majority of the crew and cast were there for the mission, not Shepard- the expendibles, the likes of Mordin and Samara and Thane and even Jack. Even Chakwas is there for Joker, not Shepard. The only people for whom Shepard is a motivation are Joker, Garrus, Tali, and Legion... and even they could have been written with taking motivations already given (Joker for flying, Garrus for revenge, Tali for the Migrant Fleet and duty (which could lead to the Treason plot better), and Legion to make contact with Humans/organics).

 

If ME2 was the adventure of not-Shepard, you'd keep almost all the same missions, and all the same themes, but without the nonsense of abandoning previous choices and relationships to reset Shepard, because Shepard wouldn't have to be reset. Instead of Sheaprd, First Human Spectre, Public Face of Humanity, we'd have Taylor, the Secret Face of Humanity in the Dark, giving a different foil of how Humanity influences and expresses itself in the galaxy. The story can still end with the player flickin TIM the bird and running away from Cerberus, if that's what we want.

 

 

The same premise applies to ME3 with not-Shepard. Say it's re-imagined PC Vega. It's the War Hero narrative: Vega starts as the padawan for the Virmire Survivor, takes over by necessity while surrounded by heroes and legends while serving as Hackett's gopher, but comes to stand on his own as the face of War Effort and Resistance with one PC-inherent victory over the Reapers after another, all while guilt (from Earth, from the backstory) builds up in the dreams.

 

 

After the Conduit, what was Shepard ever unqiuely qualified for that another PC couldn't have been... or that couldn't have been written with ease to accept another PC? Nothing- because Shepard's uniqueness stopped being anything but fame after ME1.

 

 

I disagree. I think there were extremely strong narrative threads in the Series that this was Shepard's story and the series is stronger for it being Shepard's story. ME3 really doesn't work without Shepard.

 

The one aspect of ME2 that is normally panned as bad writing that I don't is the Lazarist Project. The reason is that this is a simple continuation of the Messiah arch of Shepard. I wont go into the numerous  points the run through the series that show the Messiah archetype was a constant theme, as i have done so many times already in other threads but it is pretty clear this was an intended archetype for Shepard. This only works if the series is Shepard's story.

 

And given that there is a Messiah story running parallel to the main narrative Shepard has to be the individual on the ground in ME3. This is the moment when the "divine knowledge" that Shepard holds is proven true. And when the galaxy looks to the Messiah to save them.

 

ME2 is a poorer game because of its bad writing, and a major contributing factor to the bad writing was that the Protagonist has zero character growth. Which isn't because the character is Shepard but because they didn't bother to WRITE IT IN. I don't see writing Shepard out completely as the way to improve p!ss poor writing. I see that as exacerbating the problem not solving it.

 

Dragon age works with no set protagonist because the series is about the Age not the individual. It is actually written with the intent of it being about a single age in an imaginary history so no single individual could be the focal point as location and time make this impossible. Mass effect was written with an entirely different intent so taking a DA approach is folly in my opinion. Not every problem is a nail, so the hammer is not a solution to all problems.

[Iakus]

As noted in the ME2 prologue. I'm not sure whether to file this under lampshading, misdirection, or the return of the repressed, since while they talk about Shepard's iconic status, that's of almost no actual use in ME2. (Though I doubt a Jacob- or Miranda-commanded SR-2 would be permitted to dock at the Citadel; as bad as their security is, would a private warship bearing insignia of a known terrorist organization be well-received?)
 

Given at this point Shepard is a suspected terrorist him/herself, yeah, I think they would have gotten away with it.  Jacob, at least, had an Alliance hero background to fall back on.

 

 The entire "work for Cerberus" thing was a cool idea in concept, but was executed in an incredibly lazy and uncreative manner.

[Seboist]

Given at this point Shepard is a suspected terrorist him/herself, yeah, I think they would have gotten away with it.  Jacob, at least, had an Alliance hero background to fall back on.

 

 The entire "work for Cerberus" thing was a cool idea in concept, but was executed in an incredibly lazy and uncreative manner.

 

It was some inane attempt at creating some "dark" and "edgy" story, which ME2's plot is anything but in actuality. Nothing dark about flying around in a luxury space yacht, playing spectre therapist for asinine daddy issues, fighting color coded sesame street mercs, dying and coming back to life within 5 minutes and treating it like an afternoon nap and finally, working for a "secret" organization that plasters it's logo everywhere.

 

The working for Cerberus bit ultimately didn't mean much anyhow as there's zero conflict of ideology going on and Shepard largely does whatever he wants and only reports to TIM every once in a while.

[Vapaa]

Given at this point Shepard is a suspected terrorist him/herself, yeah, I think they would have gotten away with it.  Jacob, at least, had an Alliance hero background to fall back on.

It would've worked if Cerberus made an attempt, even an hamfisted one, at acting undercover instead of showing off their damn logo on every single occasion.

[Mathias]

Regarding Mac, I don't dislike Mac Walters because he's (half) responsible for ME3's ending. I dislike him for his attitude towards the fanbase about said ending, that continues on til this day. The guy still acts as if the ending was amazing. He still acts like people who didn't like it are just a "very" tiny minority that just didn't understand it. And he still acts like they did nothing wrong. 

I don't expect him to go "Yeah you're right. The ending blows, I'm sorry." Because the guy works for a company and that's bad for business. None of the Bioware staff can just flat out admit that. So it's understandable to see them support the ending. But Mac takes it to such a degree where he comes off disrespectful, and honestly, like he has resentment for how we reacted back in March 2012. 

 

I enjoyed his work on Garrus and Liara. In fact that's a lie. I LOVED his work on Garrus and Liara, those were my favorite squad members and I loved their character arcs throughout the trilogy. He's a good character writer, but I just don't like the guy. It's part of the reason I have low expectations for ME:A. 

[CronoDragoon]

Regarding Mac, I don't dislike Mac Walters because he's (half) responsible for ME3's ending. I dislike him for his attitude towards the fanbase about said ending, that continues on til this day. The guy still acts as if the ending was amazing. He still acts like people who didn't like it are just a "very" tiny minority that just didn't understand it. And he still acts like they did nothing wrong. 

I don't expect him to go "Yeah you're right. The ending blows, I'm sorry." Because the guy works for a company and that's bad for business. None of the Bioware staff can just flat out admit that. So it's understandable to see them support the ending. But Mac takes it to such a degree where he comes off disrespectful, and honestly, like he has resentment for how we reacted back in March 2012. 

 

I enjoyed his work on Garrus and Liara. In fact that's a lie. I LOVED his work on Garrus and Liara, those were my favorite squad members and I loved their character arcs throughout the trilogy. He's a good character writer, but I just don't like the guy. It's part of the reason I have low expectations for ME:A. 

 

can you source these offenses by mac?

[DarthSliver]

That hook though also put them in a corner for the series, which is a bigger issue that seems to be glossed over.

 

It was a well done little twist and a good finish, I grant you that. Imagine the overall experience being more impactful though if you were fully invested. I never felt fully invested in the first game, not like how I was in 2 or 3 honestly.

 

We shall see what he can do with TOR. I wonder what they are planning next after this upcoming expansion.

 

I don't think ME1 is bad but only when you connect it to the sequels. Which doesn't show that ME1 is a bad game just that the writing direction changed that brought ME1 out of sync with the sequels. But personally I think the series as a whole was great until the Starbrat, ME3 big writing glaring flaw is the Starbrat. It made all previous choices not matter by presenting us with a set of new choices. 

[DarthSliver]

http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?p=1022

 

Even still, it's nice to have him back. Who can say where he might invest some of his writing skill going forward?

I actually recently obtained a gaming computer so I can start enjoying SWTOR and many other PC only games, I don't however have plans to play games on it that I played on console just yet. Since I have a console I probably will only play games that are limited to PC like Starcraft, SWTOR, and othe RTS games like that. 

[pdusen]

can you source these offenses by mac?

 

I, too, would like to see where this offensive behavior occurred.

[Iakus]

I, too, would like to see where this offensive behavior occurred.

http://www.complex.c...er-white-moment

 

 

And I think that’s one of the things we really underestimated, which was how much ownership people would take over a character that they could do that. You know, you’ve been given free choice to make all these decisions with this character, with the fates of millions of people, and then, you don’t get to choose your own fate. And I’m not saying that our decision was wrong or right. I think we just underestimated the impact that would have on certain players. To be fair, I get people, especially at the Cons, who will say, “I loved it. It was heart-wrenching, but I felt it was right for my Shepard.” And to me, that’s why it was the right path. But because there was no choice, it was going to be right for some people, and for others, in the middle, and other people were obviously very upset about it. In hindsight, I don’t think there was anything we would have changed about that, but it is a really good lesson learned.

I lost a lot of respect for him after this interview.

[dreamgazer]

http://www.complex.c...er-white-moment
 
I lost a lot of respect for him after this interview.

That interview doesn't support Mathias' claims about Mac Walters, though (besides some faint and justifiable defense of his writing/decisions), and there's some content between the bold parts that actually disproves it. Also, given your extensive history of railing against the ending, how was it that this interview made you lose a lot of respect for him?

[Han Shot First]

 

 

I lost a lot of respect for him after this interview.

 

That response irked me because it was a variant of 'the fans didn't like it because Shepard dies' argument.

 

That certainly was true for some, but it was far from being true for everyone who didn't like the original endings. I know I wasn't alone in not having an issue with Shepard dying at the end, so long as that death purchased the survival of galactic civilization. If ME3 had something similar to Dragon Age's Ultimate Sacrifice ending, I'd have had no complaints. 

[Iakus]

That interview doesn't support Mathias' claims about Mac Walters, though (besides some faint and justifiable defense of his writing/decisions), and there's some content between the bold parts that actually disprove it. Also, given your extensive history railing against the ending, how was it that this interview made you lose a lot of respect for him?

Because despite all the backlash, even with his tepid acknowledgement that yeah, maybe this did p*ss off a few people, it was still "the right path" specifically because there was no choice.  Because it was right for a few people who approached him at cons, it was therefore right for the entire audience.  They're right, everyone else is wrong..  He wouldn't have changed anything.

 

Plus as Han Shot First said, it's just a reiteration of "the players werre just sad and confused.  without delving into what made the endings terribad to begin with.

[Vapaa]

I enjoyed his work on Garrus and Liara. In fact that's a lie. I LOVED his work on Garrus and Liara,

 

Mac was Liara's writer on all three games ?

[Han Shot First]

Mac was Liara's writer on all three games ?

 

Only in Mass Effect 2.

 

In ME1 she was written by Drew Karpyshyn and in LotSB and ME3 by Sylvia Feketekuty. I believe Drew created the character as well. Garrus was created by Mac.

[Bakgrind]

http://www.complex.c...er-white-moment

 

I lost a lot of respect for him after this interview.

 

To me his comment about the Breaking Bad kind of showed how they got kind of star struck by the success of the series and subsequently was so caught up in the moment that they were over reaching  beyond their creative  grasp by trying to make Mass Effect into something it was not. And by that I mean one needs to be sure what genre they are writing for and keep it as that without trying to go over the top.

[dreamgazer]

Because despite all the backlash, even with his tepid acknowledgement that yeah, maybe this did p*ss off a few people, it was still "the right path" specifically because there was no choice.  Because it was right for a few people who approached him at cons, it was therefore right for the entire audience.  They're right, everyone else is wrong..  He wouldn't have changed anything.
 
Plus as Han Shot First said, it's just a reiteration of "the players werre just sad and confused.  without delving into what made the endings terribad to begin with.

You're still twisting and putting words in his mouth to support your position, though.

He's going to defend his work, especially when there's a polarized response to it. I'd lose a lot of respect for any creative individual who didn't.

[CronoDragoon]

So Mac defends his ending by saying it was right for some people while acknowledging it wasn't right for everyone, and he's insulting fans. The persecution complex is real.

[Vapaa]

Only in Mass Effect 2.

 

In ME1 she was written by Drew Karpyshyn and in LotSB and ME3 by Sylvia Feketekuty. I believe Drew created the character as well. Garrus was created by Mac.

 

Good thing he wrote her in ME2, ME1 Liara was as interesting as an average japanese harem comedy character, her character started to gromw in ME2, reached its peak in LotSB (as it should be, since the DLC was all about her) and then retained a good level in ME3 (bar Thessia).

 

I find myself regulary liking Feketekuty's writing.