6494 réponses à ce sujet

[100k]

ThePwener wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I just think "Player character" could provide a nice change of pace from "Player Character + squad mates". However, it's not at the top of my 'wish list'.

Alpha Protocol is for you. Oh what ME could have been.....

The conversation elements of AP were insane. Especially the timed responses -- and cutting edge writing. 

Too bad that the game play execution sucked.

[ThePwener]

Il Divo wrote...

At least Human Revolution turned out really well.

Off-topic, but is it any good? I haven't bothered to look it up.

[Il Divo]

ThePwener wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

At least Human Revolution turned out really well.

Off-topic, but is it any good? I haven't bothered to look it up.

Before it came out, my top 4 games were

1) Portal 2
2) Ocarina of Time
3) Knights of the Old Republic
4) Mass Effect 2

This is pre-emptive, but let's just say Mass Effect 2 has been dethroned. Essentially, Human Revolution is the successor Deus Ex always deserved. And the setting/atmosphere/music is some of the best I've seen in gaming. Yes, I am in love.

Edit: The game also gives you a decent number of ways to approach every situation, which does give it some great replay value. And the shooting mechanics (imo) are above decent.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 septembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[ThePwener]

100k wrote...

The conversation elements of AP were insane. Especially the timed responses -- and cutting edge writing. 

Too bad that the game play execution sucked.

In my opinion, it was better then ME1's so I don't understand what the issue was with the critics. It had romances and sex too, so I really don't see the differences. And the face expressions, wow!

The combat was better then ME1's, way better. A little change and we could all be on the Obsidian forums talking about AP and saying how ME was received bad. Continuity is aweasome.

[ThePwener]

Il Divo wrote...

Before it came out, my top 4 games were

1) Portal 2
2) Ocarina of Time
3) Knights of the Old Republic
4) Mass Effect 2

This is pre-emptive, but let's just say Mass Effect 2 has been dethroned. Essentially, Human Revolution is the successor Deus Ex always deserved. And the setting/atmosphere/music is some of the best I've seen in gaming. Yes, I am in love.

Edit: The game also gives you a decent number of ways to approach every situation, which does give it some great replay value. And the shooting mechanics (imo) are above decent.

And here I was waiting for Dead Rising 2: Off the Record and Saints Row The Third and you say that. I'll look is up.

[Xeranx]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

It's also possible that the writers wrote mostly the story they wanted, its just that some of us don't enjoy it. I guarantee that no matter what the story or who the writer, there are people out there who don't enjoy it. It doesn't necessarily mean the writer is bad or lazy; it's simply a matter of taste.

However, what I really find amusing is that I seriously doubt the work most of us do could survive similar examination and criticism. Are we all such incredibly hard working, brilliant people that can throw these words around at other people without being total hypocrites? Very doubtful.

Also, none of us are accomplished writers that have ever produced anything, yet because of the wonderful anonymity of the internet we offer professional writers advice like we have some idea of  what we're talking about. While I'm fine with people explaining what they personally enjoy and spitballing about stories they would like to see written, let's stop pretending that we know what we're talking about.

Giving my honest feelings, I find this tactic to be the most cowardly.  It's a method to stifle the other side and is almost always brought up by those who disagree with the detractors.  It says, "You're not on their level so shut up".  
As you mentioned anonymity, would you take a poster's word if they were to tell you that they wrote several New York Times bestsellers?  If anyone here or even Smudboy were like Orson Scott Card or Stephen King would you take them at face value if they told you who they were?  I seriously doubt it, but if it were true you wouldn't be able to dispute it anyway.  

Whether someone is on the level of Bioware writers, above them or below them has no bearing on a critique.  Not being a professional in a field doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about.  I'll invoke a well-worn phrase here: "Those that can do.  Those that can't teach."  If you can judge someone else's music though your not a professional musician, judge an actor's chops though you are not a performing actor, judge a singer's singing though you don't sing yourself, judge someone else's method of parenting without being a parent yourself, you cannot and should not use that statement in bold at any time.

Modifié par Xeranx, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:03 .

[Il Divo]

ThePwener wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Before it came out, my top 4 games were

1) Portal 2
2) Ocarina of Time
3) Knights of the Old Republic
4) Mass Effect 2

This is pre-emptive, but let's just say Mass Effect 2 has been dethroned. Essentially, Human Revolution is the successor Deus Ex always deserved. And the setting/atmosphere/music is some of the best I've seen in gaming. Yes, I am in love.

Edit: The game also gives you a decent number of ways to approach every situation, which does give it some great replay value. And the shooting mechanics (imo) are above decent.

And here I was waiting for Dead Rising 2: Off the Record and Saints Row The Third and you say that. I'll look is up.

Yah, man. Prepare for the Arrival...of Human Revolution.

[Warkupo]

He's no Yahtzee.

[Il Divo]

Warkupo wrote...

He's no Yahtzee.

No, he's not. But I do consider that a good thing. Yahtzee is good for a laugh, but little else, imo.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:05 .

[ThePwener]

scyphozoa wrote...

Seriously, 100+ pages about smudboy? what is this, march 2010?

I know right, it's not like we're in the BSN or anything.

[100k]

Xeranx wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

It's also possible that the writers wrote mostly the story they wanted, its just that some of us don't enjoy it. I guarantee that no matter what the story or who the writer, there are people out there who don't enjoy it. It doesn't necessarily mean the writer is bad or lazy; it's simply a matter of taste.

However, what I really find amusing is that I seriously doubt the work most of us do could survive similar examination and criticism. Are we all such incredibly hard working, brilliant people that can throw these words around at other people without being total hypocrites? Very doubtful.

Also, none of us are accomplished writers that have ever produced anything, yet because of the wonderful anonymity of the internet we offer professional writers advice like we have some idea of  what we're talking about. While I'm fine with people explaining what they personally enjoy and spitballing about stories they would like to see written, let's stop pretending that we know what we're talking about.

Giving my honest feelings, I find this tactic to be the most cowardly.  It's a method to stifle the other side and is almost always brought up by those who disagree with the detractors.  It says, "You're not on their level so shut up".  
As you mentioned anonymity, would you take a poster's word if they were to tell you that they wrote several New York Times bestsellers?  If anyone here or even Smudboy were like Orson Scott Card or Stephen King would you take them at face value if they told you who they were?  I seriously doubt it, but if it were true you wouldn't be able to dispute it anyway.  

Whether someone is on the level of Bioware writers, above them or below them has no bearing on a critique.  Not being a professional in a field doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about.  I'll invoke a well-worn phrase here: "Those that can do.  Those that can't teach."  If you can judge someone else's music though your not a professional musician, judge an actor's chops though you are not a performing actor, judge a singer's singing though you don't sing yourself, judge someone else's method of parenting without being a parent yourself, you cannot and should not use that statement in bold at any time.

Agreed. Especially on a public forum. Besides, I'd rather that we had a (fairly) intelligent conversation about the merits and basics of good storytelling, than...whatever else we discuss here.

Don't like it, don't post.

Modifié par 100k, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:07 .

[100k]

Il Divo wrote...

Warkupo wrote...

He's no Yahtzee.

No, he's not. But I do consider that a good thing. Yahtzee is good for a laugh, but little else, imo.

Agreed. And he doesn't need to be.

[Warkupo]

Yahtzee can rip on a video game and make it funny. This guy bores me to tears. Maybe another twenty minutes in, he might have said something profound, but I will never know because of how mind-numingly boring it is to listen to him attempt to make a joke.

[Whatever42]

Xeranx wrote...

Giving my honest feelings, I find this tactic to be the most cowardly.  It's a method to stifle the other side and is almost always brought up by those who disagree with the detractors.  It says, "You're not on their level so shut up".  
As you mentioned anonymity, would you take a poster's word if they were to tell you that they wrote several New York Times bestsellers?  If anyone here or even Smudboy were like Orson Scott Card or Stephen King would you take them at face value if they told you who they were?  I seriously doubt it, but if it were true you wouldn't be able to dispute it anyway.  

Whether someone is on the level of Bioware writers, above them or below them has no bearing on a critique.  Not being a professional in a field doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about.  I'll invoke a well-worn phrase here: "Those that can do.  Those that can't teach."  If you can judge someone else's music though your not a professional musician, judge an actor's chops though you are not a performing actor, judge a singer's singing though you don't sing yourself, judge someone else's method of parenting without being a parent yourself, you cannot and should not use that statement in bold at any time.

I'm not telling anyone to shut up. I am suggesting that if you're going to insult the writers by calling them bad and lazy and are going to tell them how to write that you should have at least have some credibility if you want to be taken seriously and not as a mouthy hypocrite.

It's one thing to say that you think a note is off-key. It's another to insult the singer by calling them an untalented, lazy hack. Especially when you do so from the anonymity of the internet with zero credibility of your own.

At least the real critics publish their reviews publically and their reviews are even reviewed. A bad reviewer with poor analysis and strong biases that have few people sharing them is soon out of work. Being a forum troll, however, is pretty much just bottom feeding.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:20 .

[Il Divo]

Warkupo wrote...

Yahtzee can rip on a video game and make it funny. This guy bores me to tears. Maybe another twenty minutes in, he might have said something profound, but I will never know because of how mind-numingly boring it is to listen to him attempt to make a joke.

Like I said, he's good for a laugh. But critical analysis (of anything) doesn't need to be absolutely hilarious. In this case, Smud does add random bursts of humor, to his credit. But in the end, it's a plot analysis. So primarily it should be about the plot.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:23 .

[100k]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Giving my honest feelings, I find this tactic to be the most cowardly.  It's a method to stifle the other side and is almost always brought up by those who disagree with the detractors.  It says, "You're not on their level so shut up".  
As you mentioned anonymity, would you take a poster's word if they were to tell you that they wrote several New York Times bestsellers?  If anyone here or even Smudboy were like Orson Scott Card or Stephen King would you take them at face value if they told you who they were?  I seriously doubt it, but if it were true you wouldn't be able to dispute it anyway.  

Whether someone is on the level of Bioware writers, above them or below them has no bearing on a critique.  Not being a professional in a field doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about.  I'll invoke a well-worn phrase here: "Those that can do.  Those that can't teach."  If you can judge someone else's music though your not a professional musician, judge an actor's chops though you are not a performing actor, judge a singer's singing though you don't sing yourself, judge someone else's method of parenting without being a parent yourself, you cannot and should not use that statement in bold at any time.

I'm not telling anyone to shut up. I am suggesting that if you're going to insult the writers by calling them bad and lazy and are going to tell them how to write that you should have at least have some credibility if you want to be taken seriously and not as a mouthy hypocrite.

It's one thing to say that you think a note is off-key. It's another to insult the singer by calling them an untalented, lazy hack. Especially when you do so from the anonymity of the internet with zero credibility of your own.

At least the real critics publish their reviews publically and their reviews are even reviewed. A bad reviewer with poor analysis and strong biases that have few people sharing them is soon out of work. Being a forum troll, however, is pretty much just bottom feeding.

Yeah, but nobody is saying that. We're not saying that Bioware sucks at writing. We're saying that THIS story just doesn't live up to the excellence of some of their previous works. Nobody in this thread has said that ME3 is beyond redemption storywise -- and we can't count smudboy here because he's not in this thread, nor are ALL of his points supported, even by those who understand and appreciate his videos.

Its like the Patryk femShep drawing. I think we can all agree that he's a highly talented artist. But many of us also agree that the "new" promotional picture he made just is nowhere near as good as some of his older stuff. We then proceed to list reasons why (textures, spacing, lighting, etc), in the similar fashion to how we deconstruct a well/poorly written story.

We all have the right to do this. Doing so promotes tighter writing and more interesting evaluation of how to handle storytelling in media. Besides, the thing you have to remember about reviewers is that they don't sit on a pedestal of status above the rest of us. Gears of War and MW used to be praised for having good stories by proffessional reviewers. I think we can all agree that they may have been a bit to caught up in the exciting elements of the game to look at the bad elements as well. 

[Warkupo]

Il Divo wrote...

Warkupo wrote...

Yahtzee can rip on a video game and make it funny. This guy bores me to tears. Maybe another twenty minutes in, he might have said something profound, but I will never know because of how mind-numingly boring it is to listen to him attempt to make a joke.

Like I said, he's good for a laugh. But critical analysis (of anything) doesn't need to be absolutely hilarious. In this case, Smud does add random bursts of humor, to his credit. But in the end, it's a plot analysis. So primarily it should be about the plot.

You're not getting my point. It doesn't matter if it's comedy, a documentary, or a friggin' opera, if it's not entertaining in some fashion then people aren't going to watch it. This is basic, English 102 stuff. Whenever you are speaking to an audience, you need to be saying something that is actually worth listening too. 

This isn't a plot analysis either, this is some muffled guy piling on a bunch of generic insults without any relevence to the actual game, and a 30 second segment focused on a pun about vacuums. Friggin' Riviting stuff. As it were, I could very easily take his 'review', throw on some footage of any other game/movie where you fight aliens, and it would have just as much relevance to that as this does to the Mass Effect series. 

This review was so bad that I assumed it had to be a joke. A very poorly executed joke.  

Modifié par Warkupo, 06 septembre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Xeranx]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Giving my honest feelings, I find this tactic to be the most cowardly.  It's a method to stifle the other side and is almost always brought up by those who disagree with the detractors.  It says, "You're not on their level so shut up".  
As you mentioned anonymity, would you take a poster's word if they were to tell you that they wrote several New York Times bestsellers?  If anyone here or even Smudboy were like Orson Scott Card or Stephen King would you take them at face value if they told you who they were?  I seriously doubt it, but if it were true you wouldn't be able to dispute it anyway.  

Whether someone is on the level of Bioware writers, above them or below them has no bearing on a critique.  Not being a professional in a field doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about.  I'll invoke a well-worn phrase here: "Those that can do.  Those that can't teach."  If you can judge someone else's music though your not a professional musician, judge an actor's chops though you are not a performing actor, judge a singer's singing though you don't sing yourself, judge someone else's method of parenting without being a parent yourself, you cannot and should not use that statement in bold at any time.

I'm not telling anyone to shut up. I am suggesting that if you're going to insult the writers by calling them bad and lazy and are going to tell them how to write that you should have at least have some credibility if you want to be taken seriously and not as a mouthy hypocrite.

It's one thing to say that you think a note is off-key. It's another to insult the singer by calling them an untalented, lazy hack. Especially when you do so from the anonymity of the internet with zero credibility of your own.

At least the real critics publish their reviews publically and their reviews are even reviewed. A bad reviewer with poor analysis and strong biases that have few people sharing them is soon out of work. Being a forum troll, however, is pretty much just bottom feeding.

Again, that's a method of stifling someone.  It is telling someone to shut up unless they're on the same level.  I don't know how you can't see that?  I mean, what response would you want to that statement if not for someone to be quiet until they got the "credibility" someone else desired?  What's to stop them from moving the goal post each time?  

Example:
Person A: "You should wait until you publish a book before you can critique another author."  
Person B: "I've gotten my book published.  Now I want to talk about what could be better in this author's work."

Person A: "Nope sorry.  That author has published 5 books while you only have 1.  Next time champ."
Person B: "I've published 5 books.  Now can I comment on that author's work?"

Person A: "Not unless you have at least 3 bestsellers."
Person B: *grumbles*

Person B: "I now have 3 bestsellers."
Person A: "Are they New York Times bestsellers?"

It's completely arbitrary and frustrating.  Asking for any credibility that can't be verified due to the anonymity of the internet or (more aptly) because you won't believe the claim made is a method of telling the person to shut up whether you believe it or not.  That message comes through loud and clear as a bell.  

Also your point about needing credibility to back a statement in the negative is flawed.  Your stance should be that one needs credibility to offer a critique regardless of point of view.  Skewing things so that you only hear the good instead of the bad shows a strong case of bias.  There is no objectivity where bias exists.  It's like saying those who gave ME2 a good review are objectively good critics because their views agree with yours and those who didn't are biased hacks.  That is essentially a hypocritical viewpoint and your statement (the one I bolded) harbors it greatly.

Modifié par Xeranx, 06 septembre 2011 - 04:05 .

[100k]

Warkupo wrote...You're not getting my point. It doesn't matter if it's comedy, a documentary, or a friggin' opera, if it's not entertaining in some fashion then people aren't going to watch it --

I found it entertaining and interesting. 

[Nashiktal]

ThePwener wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

Seriously, 100+ pages about smudboy? what is this, march 2010?

I know right, it's not like we're in the BSN or anything.

Well you could always stop posting in the thread you are not going to contribute to, that would always lower the post count. Although you could always get over your hangup over smudboy and discuss the arguments at hand instead.

Just sayin.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Warkupo wrote...
You're not getting my point. It doesn't matter if it's comedy, a documentary, or a friggin' opera, if it's not entertaining in some fashion then people aren't going to watch it. This is basic, English 102 stuff. Whenever you are speaking to an audience, you need to be saying something that is actually worth listening too. 

This isn't a plot analysis either, this is some muffled guy piling on a bunch of generic insults without any relevence to the actual game, and a 30 second segment focused on a pun about vacuums. Friggin' Riviting stuff. As it were, I could very easily take his 'review', throw on some footage of any other game/movie where you fight aliens, and it would have just as much relevance to that as this does to the Mass Effect series.

You are wrong on so many elvels. Not everything is meant to entertain the masses.
Masses are morons with short-attentions spans in general. Most modern entertainment is equal to jiggling shiny keys in front of a baby.

His polot anylsys is just that - a plot analyiss. For the most part it's well argumented and presented.

This review was so bad that I assumed it had to be a joke. A very poorly executed joke.  

This post is so bad I assumed it had to be a joke. A very poorly executed joke.

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

My argument was not only completely hand-waved, but done so in a condescending way. People keep saying that he makes good points despite the way he presents them. It is true that the points are valid or not regardless of the presentation, but that does not mean presentation is irrelevant. When trying to convince someone of your views, HOW you present them is just as important as what you present.

Due, you do that ALL THE TIME.
You accuse him of being mean and condesending and you're doign the exact same thing. And do a far worse job of hiding it b.t.w.

Sentances like "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" ... you throw cheap insults at him constantly and come off far more emoptional.

No offense, but if we're talking about presentation, he wins by a Everest avalanche.

You are so off the mark it is not even funny. I may have made sarcastic remarks about some of his arguments, but I explain why I feel the argument is invalid. I give reasons for why this is the case. I examine each argument I disagree with in detail. I do not hand-wave it with a 2 second clip and act like my job is done. I would not care if he was sarcastic as long as there was an argument attached to it. The problem is that he used sarcasm AS the argument.

Also, I would love for you to point out one single cheap insult to him. Heck, I'd like you to point out one cheap insult I've said to anyone. I have never insulted anyone on a personal level, despite several personal insults he made to me. Just because I think some of his arguments don't make sense dose not mean I think he is stupid or a troll or anything like that. In fact I state several times that I think he is intelligent and funny.

Lines like, "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" are attacks on the argument, not the person. Smart people can make dumb arguments. Happens all the time. I think you need to learn the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the person. I have never insulted his intelligence, personality, or status.

Dude. Velied and hidden attacks are stil lattacks. No matter how nicely one tried to pack them.

Maybe I'm wrong here. Who knows. This is the internets, the land on misconnunications, inferred meaning, reading into things and not getting the point.
Maybe you didn't mean to end up looking like that. But that's how you end up looking IMHO. You don't appear un-biased, you do appear condesending, youre arguments don't appear as well-though as smuds, etc, etc..

Now if you're so willing to entertain that though that I just got the wrong impression...then you should also take into account that maybe you got the wrong impression about smudboy too. It goes both ways.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The first time I read one of Smugboy's posts, my thought was "Wow, what a pompous, condescending jackwagon."


It wasn't directed at me, it wasn't in response to anyone, it was just more of his general comments on Bioware, and on anyone who disagrees with him.

And yet you never appearantly succeed into countering the points he brings up in his videos. 

Snide, snickering, half-true, and largely not-funny comedy, and pompous, hollow, postmodernist lit-crit, don't necessitate "countering". 

You have "dismissed" that claim apparently. There is no elephant in the room!

I don't need to counter that...because I say so!

[armass]

Here are the problems i found with ME2 main plot:

- Shepard's death: If executed correctly this might have worked, however it was seemingly just used as an excuse to reboot the characters stats and as a marketing gimmick. There is no dwelling over the death, no questions or pondering on ones existance, and what if any did Cerberus change in him. You really trust those implants they put into you? If you die and are reborn the same, it is a big deal.
- Cerberus is the nicest terrorist organization in the world, seemingly. Everybody just joins at the drop of the hat, without questioning too much, even characters like Joker and Chakwas and Kelly, yet it seems to be in very common knowledge that their organization isnt the nicest around the galaxy. Either they are dumb, dont care or Cerberus has a damn good PR and employment benefits. And why that logo if youre supposed to be a hushhush organization?
- Why was Joker walking? How did his syndrome get cured?
- No going against the Cerberus if youve faced them, learned about admiral Kahoku, are sole survivor etc.
- The collector plot is just handed over us on silver platter, no research of your own, no exploration, no using mercenary circles to set traps etc. Just that TIM calls you, here's a place, go there and get x. Tadaa youre now ready to face them, apparently. Also it is underhandled and greatly overshadowed by the individual character stories. In short, couple of more missions to deepen the collector story would have been in order. They should have cut all the stupid n7 missions and used these instead. Plot revelant side mission with the collectors(the prothean beacon comes the closest), not just to go to planet X to kill random mercs and mechs, or press a few buttons for reason Z.
- Collectors/harbinger seemingly want Shepard, yet at times they don't give a damn. Like in the beginning, after destroying Normandy, why didn't they destroy or collect the escape pods or Shepard's remains. Did they just later decide "hhmm you know we should start collecting humans, and i think i want Shepards body too!" ... What the hell is going on?
-Shepard can't use any evidence cause the plot requires it to be so.
- Baby arnold... why.... How do they come into that shape, do they evolve out of the human goop in some sack like the transformer babies of TF2? Please explain this better in the next game. Why were they making it? As a distraction? To attack the Citadel again? The reapers had already started flying towards the milky way in the end of me1 apparently, so why the human reaper? 

ill write some more later, when i can think some more.

Modifié par armass, 06 septembre 2011 - 10:24 .