panzerwzh
N3
All these violent delights have violent ends.
Posts: 298 Likes: 191
inherit
3787
0
Nov 25, 2017 14:02:23 GMT
191
panzerwzh
All these violent delights have violent ends.
298
Feb 23, 2017 18:10:41 GMT
February 2017
panzerwzh
|
Post by panzerwzh on Apr 20, 2017 17:27:56 GMT
are you just insecure to comparisons between the two games? Its perfectly valid to compare BioWare's games with other flagship series that offer similar experiences. Desperate moves in desperate times, I'm feeling sorry for MEA apologists now. |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Nov 28, 2024 23:17:00 GMT
10,588
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 20, 2017 17:44:47 GMT
No, it needed a higher production quality to start with. Better writing, better scene design, and yes, better animation. The flaws are not of a kind that could've been fixed by polishing, except for the animations maybe, they exist because there was a lack of creativity in storytelling and inefficient production as well as the inability to include, within time and budget, some features I consider essential to an open-world-like game (see my other post above). You see a lot of potential in MEA. The conception of most elements was fine. The main plot is engaging, and the ending sequence was easily the best of any Bioware game of the last 10 years, including ME1. The same quests that came across as uninspiring or boring could've been good with better writing, more dynamism, interactivity with the world and better scene design. I don't know how much of a budget problem they had, maybe it's not possible to make a high-quality game with what they had, but they desperately need better writers, and writing itself shouldn't be among the expensive features. The big problem is none of you define what better writing or interactivity means. I read an article on Kotaku recently that compared some things from both games...and the author boiled down the issue to a lack of self-awareness of the cliches on the part of Mass Effect compared to Witcher, and the Witcher providing a glut more information in incedental sections (journals, scanning comments, etc) I think that is a legitimate issue, but not a game killing one, as the question of it being good writing or not is still undefined here. Is a self-awareness of the cliches a good thing? Do we need tons of expositional dialogue even if it amounts to a joke? Is the more dry approach of SAM really boring? Until that can be answered...the accusations people give are ultimately hollow because there seems to be no real consensus as to what the problem really is with ANYTHING about the game, save animation issues. Did the optimistic earnestness turn people off after 30 hours of "were going to die" in Mass Effect 3? Is the tone too drastically different? Is it really incidental dialogue which was never BioWare's strong suit in the first place? What's the real problem... I have elaborated some more here: bsn.boards.net/post/580915/threadBetter writing, I can elaborate on that as well: (1) First, check your lines for lore compliance (so no lines assuming the MW had been explored completely unless you want to paint your character as utterly ignorant). Then, check your lines for basic common sense (no nonsense like "Milky Way rules"). Then, ask "Would anyone actuall say this", and if no, you'd better have a good reason for keeping it in nonetheless. "It's cool" is NOT good enough - and it actually isn't if it makes people groan. That would remove 80% of the groan-worthy nonsense. (2) Second, THINK THINGS THROUGH, damn it! If you give a character a line, place it in the wider context of the story and consider if it actually makes sense, if a character like that could reasonably say that, and say it now. A character can be silly, or casual, or sarcastic, earnest and many other things, but if I hear a line, my reaction shouldn't be "WTF did he just say? That writer deserves a slap in the face". It shouldn't catapult me out of the story. For instance, a character supposedly somewhat knowledgeable in any science shouldn't use the term "science" in a way that makes it clear to anyone with some very basic knowledge of the matter that this character has no idea of what they're speaking about (or rather, that the writer had no idea of what they were writing about). Writers should have basic knowledge of everything they write about, and make their characters speak about. At the very least. Do your fucking research, writer! Even if you're an intern on temporary hire to write inconsequential character #413. You know, I wonder why I almost never run into problems like this in books, but only in games (maybe in TV shows as well, but I don't watch that much TV, and anyway it's more transient than a game as an experience). I wonder why TW3 avoids these problems almost as well as books while the ME franchise has them at every turn. And I'm not even talking about the trash-talking Archon in the ending because I consider the possibility that he was intentionally written that way (not that this improves my opinion of the writers). As for genre conventions, writers should be aware of them regardless of whether they actually use them in any creative way, just to avoid writing pitfalls. There also needs to be better voice acting, but I'll have to think more about it before I can put a finger on how exactly I think it should be improved to be more lifelike. Edit: Note that I'm on a 3rd playthrough of MEA, so in some way the game does work. There is quite a bit to like, but that also makes the other parts stand out more. |
|
