367 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

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.

No joke.

[Han Shot First]

 

 

I find myself regulary liking Feketekuty's writing.

 

So do I.

 

Since I prefer the Mass Effect series to Dragon Age, I wish she was working on Andromeda. 

[Iakus]

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.

No, these were his words.

 

It was the right path because some people have approached him saying it was right for their Shepards. It was the "right path" even if it was wrong for so many other Shepards.

 

He doesn't have to trash his own work, but he could at least have acknowledged that they should have done more.  Heck even the DA2 team acknowledged that not everything they tried worked.  Mac claims even with 20.20 hindsight they wouldn't have changed the endings.

[Iakus]

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.

Her Liara in ME3 made me almost wish I romanced her.

 

Almost

[dreamgazer]

Mac claims even with 20.20 hindsight they wouldn't have changed the endings.

Actually, he says that he wouldn't change that aspect of the endings, where you don't have complete agency over your character's fate.

Never have I read that he wouldn't have changed anything about the endings. Writers rarely feel that way 100%, especially about their endings.

They even released the EC, which already did change their endings in certain ways.

[Iakus]

Actually, he says that he wouldn't change that aspect of the endings, where you don't have complete agency over your character's fate.

Never have I read that he wouldn't have changed anything about the endings. Writers rarely feel that way 100%, especially about their endings.

Well as far as he seems to be concerned that's the only thing people complained about with the endings, so...

[dreamgazer]

Well as far as he seems to be concerned that's the only thing people complained about with the endings, so...

So ... no source, then?

[CronoDragoon]

I don't see how any of what Iakus is saying backs up what Mathias said. Lest we forget Mathias said Mac acted disrespectful and that "He still acts like people who didn't like it are just a "very" tiny minority that just didn't understand it." None of that is supported by Iakus's article.

[AlanC9]

It's not like iakus is actually here to defend Mathias, though.

[AlanC9]

Well as far as he seems to be concerned that's the only thing people complained about with the endings, so...

No. There's also the stuff that was fixed "as best they could" in the EC.

I take it you're arguing that there's more stuff that wasn't addressed by the EC and isn't related to what Mac is talking about in the article, and that Mac should have seen that stuff as a serious problem and talked about it too. Depending on what that stuff is, you might be right; I imagine you've got problems with stuff that Mac doesn't see as a problem.

Isn't this the part where you tell us exactly what that stuff is?

[CronoDragoon]

It's not like iakus is actually here to defend Mathias, though.

 

I guess, but considering he quoted someone who was responding to Mathias, I just thought it should be reiterated exactly for what we were asking a source. If we wanted a source that Mac still liked aspects of the ending then his article works.

[Iakus]

I guess, but considering he quoted someone who was responding to Mathias, I just thought it should be reiterated exactly for what we were asking a source. If we wanted a source that Mac still liked aspects of the ending then his article works.

 

Well his exact quote was:

 

 

 

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.

 

And I linked an article which seemed to illustrate what Mathias was talking about.  I even bolded the parts which I thought were particularly pertinent.  Where he seemed to act dismissive of those who disliked the endings, how the fact that a few people told him it was appropriate for their Shepards, it was "the right path" to take.  How he wouldn't go back and change any of that even if he could.  It showed a lack of sympathy towards his audience and a rather callous attitude towards the people he disappointed.  That their opiniondidn't seem as important to him as the opinions of those who agree with him

[Ahglock]

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.

Yeah that article didn't seem that bad. I honestly don't know who or where the comments or articles came from anymore. But there was a lot of fan blaming initially. They just didn't get it style blaming. It's just super awesome you the fan is just too dumb to get it crap. I won't blame Mac as I don't know if he did that. I remember I think IGN played it that way in some of their articles and I am fairly sure some people at bioware did as well.

Still I have no issue with a we liked our ending and stand behind it comment. I'll disagree as it was epically bad in my mind. Not because Shepard died or because it didn't show enough wrap up pre EC but because the entire catalyst star brat concept was bad, the space magic was too extreme, the reaper motivation didn't even make weird robot logic sense. Hell a you still lose and everyone dies like refusal would have worked for me better than the catalyst concept.

[Drone223]

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.

Actually IIRC in LOTSB it was Patrick Weekes who wrote her.

[AlanC9]

And I linked an article which seemed to illustrate what Mathias was talking about.  I even bolded the parts which I thought were particularly pertinent.  Where he seemed to act dismissive of those who disliked the endings, how the fact that a few people told him it was appropriate for their Shepards, it was "the right path" to take.  How he wouldn't go back and change any of that even if he could.  It showed a lack of sympathy towards his audience and a rather callous attitude towards the people he disappointed.  That their opinion didn't seem as important to him as the opinions of those who agree with him

He doesn't think he can satisfy everyone, or that he even has an obligation to. It's not dismissive to believe these things. He just has a different idea of what RPG design ought to be than you do. He doesn't think that RPG writing should be different in this regard from any other kind of writing. (Neither do I, FWIW.)

So, as for Mathias' post:
 

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.

The bolded is true. The italed is not.

[Han Shot First]

Actually IIRC in LOTSB it was Patrick Weekes who wrote her.

 

I believe you're right. I went back and looked at an old post where Sylvia Feketekuty discussed some of the stuff she wrote for the Mass Effect series, and she said she had written Liara for most of the assault on the Shadow Broker base but not most of the dialogue after you return to the base. I presume she didn't write the stuff before hand either, since it wasn't mentioned.

 

So it seems like in LotSB she was written by Weekes except for the assault on the Shadow Broker base.

[The_Other_M]

Well, it's about time they hired Drew back.

Maybe he could retcon the dumpster fire that was ME3 with his original Dark Energy plotline or at the very least have ME:A's plot not suck.

[Vapaa]

I believe you're right. I went back and looked at an old post where Sylvia Feketekuty discussed some of the stuff she wrote for the Mass Effect series, and she said she had written Liara for most of the assault on the Shadow Broker base but not most of the dialogue after you return to the base. I presume she didn't write the stuff before hand either, since it wasn't mentioned.
 
So it seems like in LotSB she was written by Weekes except for the assault on the Shadow Broker base.

Weekes is by far my favourite Bioware writer, why he hasn't been a lead writer yet is beyond me.

[Ahglock]

Weekes is by far my favourite Bioware writer, why he hasn't been a lead writer yet is beyond me.

 

The best person is not always the one who gets the job. Social skills are probably the highest influence in promotional or new hire results. 

 

I honestly don't know who writes what at Bioware though.  I'll say LotSB is probably my favorite DLC yet though.   

[AlanC9]

Weekes is by far my favourite Bioware writer, why he hasn't been a lead writer yet is beyond me.

Isn't he one now?

[Ajensis]

Weekes is by far my favourite Bioware writer, why he hasn't been a lead writer yet is beyond me.

 

Isn't he one now?

 

Indeed he replaced David Gaider as lead writer on the Dragon Age franchise, at least for the time being.

 

And yes, Weekes is pretty awesome.

[Gothfather]

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 were 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.

 

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.

 

When you have two conflicting narratives NOTHING you do will bring "closure" with the endings. The endings would have felt a lot better if you honestly felt like it was a miracle you made it to the catalyst. The only reason the defy ending made sense in the series for Shepard is because of the power fantasy the game perfected. If Shepard felt it took everything Citadel space had to get him to this point they idea of saying "Frak you!" Wouldn't cross your mind. But you go through priority:Earth thinking "pfft reapers are pushovers. I got this." And you never feel like you could fail because you never have failed. So why exactly are you going to let some little Ai Sh!t dictate your options?

 

Now there are some issues with lack of star child foreshadowing in the series and green space magic just comes out of nowhere. What exactly about mass effect technology makes this seem even possible? So how is using a mass effect relay system making this work? it just doesn't make sense. But truthfully people are more than willing to gloss over these types of writing issues when you get closure. but how do you get closure with two narratives where one is the power fantasy where I crushed all my enemies before me and i can hear the lamentations of their women and another narrative where you are insignificant against the threat you face and it is only by luck and/or divine providence that you have achieved victory? You can't. Which means no matter what the ending, you have some kind of lack of closure and the closure you do get will feel off.

 

From the writers perspective however they don't experience game play throughout development and their story narrative is so cemented in their minds that I suspect that they don't experience the dissonance as much because of all the past reinforcement they had during the writing of the story. yet the player will get both narratives in equal measure and thus will find this has a far greater impact. Which would explain why the writers may not have the same experience with the endings their comments suggest compared to the players.

 

I feel the failure of the endings is just as much a failure in game play design as it was a failure of writing. It happened its in the past there is no sense going on and on about it. It is time EVERYONE just moved on.

[rashie]

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.

[Amirit]

From the writers perspective however they don't experience game play throughout development and their story narrative is so cemented in their minds that I suspect that they don't experience the dissonance as much because of all the past reinforcement they had during the writing of the story. yet the player will get both narratives in equal measure and thus will find this has a far greater impact. Which would explain why the writers may not have the same experience with the endings their comments suggest compared to the players.
 
I feel the failure of the endings is just as much a failure in game play design as it was a failure of writing. It happened its in the past there is no sense going on and on about it. It is time EVERYONE just moved on.

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.

[Iakus]

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.

No, he defends his endings by saying some people have walked up to them saying the endings was right for them, and therefore, it was the right path to take in general.  Thereby trivializing the opinions of everyone else who thought it was the wrong ending for them.

 

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)

 

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.

 

But this is a Drew thread, not a Mac thread, and this has dragged OT long enough so I'm bowing out.