Q & a #3

[l33telboi]

You mean like what Bioware claimed to do with the endings?

Leaving things vague so it would generate discussion and thought is something that's been around for as long as fiction has been around. BioWare has little to do with it. Besides, there's quite a difference between leaving something vague after the first instalment in a trilogy, and leaving something vague after the ending of the third instalment in a trilogy.

[mr. peasant]

Leaving things vague so it would generate discussion and thought is something that's been around for as long as fiction has been around. BioWare has little to do with it. Besides, there's quite a difference between leaving something vague after the first instalment in a trilogy, and leaving something vague after the ending of the third instalment in a trilogy.

At the risk of derailing this thread, I'm going to talk about the ME3 ending:

I think the writers of ME3 made the mistake of thinking the player cared more about the fate of the galaxy and whether or not we stop the Reaper threat over getting closure for the various characters the player had met over the course of the three games. I reckon, the game could probably have left the Reaper threat unresolved and instead properly explained what happened to the various side characters, and more people would have been fine with that.

As the creators of the universe, the writers would of course be very emotionally invested and attached to the universe that they worked so hard and for so many years to create. However, they made the mistake of assuming the players shared these feelings and about the same things when they don't. The players didn't shape and mold the universe. They merely shaped Shepard's squadmates. So, of course the players' interests would be more focused on them.


Interestingly enough, I feel the same mistake was made by Blizzard. They, having worked so long on it, clearly cared a lot about the story, the fate of Tychus Findlay and all that jazz. And they assumed that as we, the players, played the game, we too would become as attached and invested about those things same as them. Except, we didn't spend years building and developing these stories and characters. Hence, it's unsurprising that many players felt that the story of WoL lacked the emotional punch that the developers were claiming and seemed to believe the story had.


Sorry for the rambling. Not even sure if it makes sense.

[Quirel]

Leaving things vague so it would generate discussion and thought is something that's been around for as long as fiction has been around. BioWare has little to do with it. Besides, there's quite a difference between leaving something vague after the first instalment in a trilogy, and leaving something vague after the ending of the third instalment in a trilogy.

My point isn't "Bioware did it' so much as 'Bioware did it, and showed us how not to do it.'

At the risk of derailing this thread, I'm going to talk about the ME3 ending:

I think the writers of ME3 made the mistake of thinking the player cared more about the fate of the galaxy and whether or not we stop the Reaper threat over getting closure for the various characters the player had met over the course of the three games.

That's definitely a mistake they made.

The two worst levels in the game (You guys might as well write IMHO all over this post) are the ones that are set on a place we've never been and which never had all that much importance prior to the third game.

But we're supposed to care more about Earth than Tuchanka or the Citadel or Omega. Because we're humans.

It was in the advertisements. "Retake Earth!" "Fight for these little children you don't know, because they're human kids!" "WE'RE PLAYING THE FEEL-BAD MUSIC WHILE SHEPARD FINDS THAT GIRL'S DOLL! MOURN, NOW!"

It was most egregious in the endings. Before The Great Retcon, even if you got all the species to come along to fight on Earth, it was humans alone fighting to the Beam, and it was humans alone who were saved by the technicolor explosion.

So, maybe Bioware cared more about the universe than the characters. But I don't think they even cared about that enough.

[QUOTE=mr. peasant;182767]As the creators of the universe, the writers would of course be very emotionally invested and attached to the universe that they worked so hard and for so many years to create.

That there's the reason I believe that the Weeke's Post was legitimate. Multiple writers worked on the characters in the game, but the endings didn't feel like the character writers had input.

[QUOTE=mr. peasant;182767]However, they made the mistake of assuming the players shared these feelings and about the same things when they don't. The players didn't shape and mold the universe. They merely shaped Shepard's squadmates. So, of course the players' interests would be more focused on them.

Good analysis, but when I mentioned Bioware, I was talking about how Hudson and Casey yakked about 'leaving the universe open' and 'not giving the players all the answers'. Not only did the outrage blindside them, but according to one of the convention panels, the idea that destroying the relays meant sterilizing the galaxy surprised them.

Despite the fact that the destruction of a Mass Relay was the central plot point of the last DLC.

The lesson: If you're going to leave things open, make sure you're on the same page as your fans.

Interestingly enough, I feel the same mistake was made by Blizzard. They, having worked so long on it, clearly cared a lot about the story, the fate of Tychus Findlay and all that jazz. And they assumed that as we, the players, played the game, we too would become as attached and invested about those things same as them. Except, we didn't spend years building and developing these stories and characters. Hence, it's unsurprising that many players felt that the story of WoL lacked the emotional punch that the developers were claiming and seemed to believe the story had.

Sorry for the rambling. Not even sure if it makes sense.

Made perfect sense.

[Pr0nogo]

I don't think Blizzard cared very much about the story they 'worked so hard' on. They treated it pretty poorly.

[Turalyon]

Interestingly enough, I feel the same mistake was made by Blizzard. They, having worked so long on it, clearly cared a lot about the story, the fate of Tychus Findlay and all that jazz. And they assumed that as we, the players, played the game, we too would become as attached and invested about those things same as them. Except, we didn't spend years building and developing these stories and characters. Hence, it's unsurprising that many players felt that the story of WoL lacked the emotional punch that the developers were claiming and seemed to believe the story had.

In other words, the writers became a bit too pretentious and it showed.

[Hawki]

Tired, limited time, includes forum time, too tired to respond to everything, this forum or otherwise. Chipping in for what it's worth though via general response:

-Writing, I've found, has a tendency to give you something akin to a God complex. With visual media, if you've drawn something bad, you can usually tell it's bad. Writing however, it's harder to know the quality yourself. Just throwing it out there.

-The ending of Mass Effect 3 has been deconstructed to death, so I won't dwell too long. To be honest, I think the problems stemmed less from writer misconceptions and more just a rushed deadline, given how in the extended cut, little had to be changed, just added to. While I feel that it still suffers from "thematic dissonance" (way OT for this thread), I'll at least give Bioware kudos for staying true to the 'essence' of said ending while providing closure. They at least fixed the ending unlike a certain other Bioware game I could name...

(Or just blame EA. ME3 isn't the first game to suffer 'ending problems' under their watch.)

-You know, call me a fanboy, but I still feel the writers cared in WoL. There's just too much stuff that's there that didn't have to be in there, but still was (newscasts, trophies, the fact that the story goes beyond simple briefings and missions). And I don't recall the actual story (keyword, story, not campaign) being talked up in interviews. Unlike promotion for Diablo III, the story of which was...well, not as bad as many make it out to be IMO, but I think the ball was definately dropped somewhere along the road. Less talking up, the less disapointment there seems to be.

-It kind of ties in to what I feel with games. Developers are pretty much obligated to 'sell' the gameplay. Story though, I think should be scaled back in being 'talked up' IMO. Story is subjective, at least more so than gameplay. Even if your game plays like crap, I can understand that you're being forced to sell it at the end of the day. With the quality/lack of a story, I think the average gamer/individual is intelligent enough to make a judgement for themselves on the quality/lack of it.

[Pr0nogo]

You know, call me a fanboy, but I still feel the writers cared in WoL. There's just too much stuff that's there that didn't have to be in there, but still was (newscasts, trophies, the fact that the story goes beyond simple briefings and missions). And I don't recall the actual story (keyword, story, not campaign) being talked up in interviews. Unlike promotion for Diablo III, the story of which was...well, not as bad as many make it out to be IMO, but I think the ball was definately dropped somewhere along the road. Less talking up, the less disapointment there seems to be.

You're a fanboy. There's no reason you should overlook the ridiculous number of poor plot executions, retarded story devices, poor scriptwriting, childish player-aggrandising, unnecessary retcons, repeated logical fallacies, ridiculous assumption-based storytelling, juvenile character development, and instances where the lack of continuity destroyed any character integrity. You can list off all the things that the writers "did right" or "did well", and I will concede on very few of those points, but your statement above shows that you don't care that the writers catered to a less-developed and less-sophisticated audience, and that by doing so they chose - keyword, chose - to lower the standards of their storytelling. You should never, ever judge a product solely by what it does right. If it did something right, acknowledge it, but don't start saying, "Well, it could be worse, and that's good enough for me! Doo dee doo!"

That's retarded, and if you really do feel that way, you're just as bad as the self-aggrandising writers.

[Quirel]

-You know, call me a fanboy, but I still feel the writers cared in WoL. There's just too much stuff that's there that didn't have to be in there, but still was (newscasts, trophies, the fact that the story goes beyond simple briefings and missions). And I don't recall the actual story (keyword, story, not campaign) being talked up in interviews.

I agree that there's parts of the game that show that Blizzard was making an effort, but I'm not sure if the trophies are an indicator.
There are certain features that seem to be expected of games these days, and achievements are one of them. Everything from the latest XBox blockbuster to Angry Birds to indie games like FTL have them.

[Hawki]

I meant the wall trophies/mementos.

[Pr0nogo]

I would have traded those for a better storyline any day, but again, we should be taking both the pros and cons of the storytelling into account - and there are many more cons.