4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

Prince Zeel wrote...

It's not that SotC didn't resonate with ME. I'm perfectly capable of understanding why say Twilight of all shtty things resonates with others when it would not for me. SotC has no message, is what I'm saying. It's like he called it. "Simplistic". Its not meant to resonate. which is indeed its charm. So, though i'm bashing SotC right now, I hope its clear that I LOVED the game, the story was okay, but deserves no special mention.

The fact that it was simplistic doesn't immediately invalidate any possible leason to be learned from it. Depth means nothing as long as there's nothing done with it, whereas a simple story that manages to be elegant and use the elements it is given while maintaining consistency can easily surpass the former. Which is one of my issues with Mass Effect: we have all these races and galactic politics and such, but they contribute little to the game as an experience.

As for SotC's lesson, I suppose a biblical quote would best summarize it:

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the world, but loses his own soul?"

Matthew 16:26, I believe.

[Prince Zeel]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

If you check Amazon, the reviews are ridiculously positive. It's hard to feel apart of the masses, when the masses act like giant tools.

I hope you were joking with the "well-written" part. Twilight only success is taking all the romance cliches teenage girls like and making it work with vampires. That's its allure.

Not all people saw it that way, and I'm not the person to argue that.  As I said, I didn't personally like it because it failed to resonate with me on several levels.  I vastly prefer 3rd person to 1st person, but I don't write 1st person stories off as bad because I don't like them.  Several people who were not teenage girls liked the novels in my circle of friends.  I'm 35 years old, my wife and her friends are even older than I, that does not make them teenage girls going squee!  I will say that it is only the first book they like because of how the story is presented (thoughts of Bella as well as her POV in the story) and because of that, the writer achieved resonance with people outside of the books stated demographic.  I liked the Host quite a bit more, but still hated first person.  Granted, the Host could not be written in 3rd person easily, but its an example of Stephanie Meyer's ability to write well, even if I don't like her stories.

All I'm trying to say is that a matter of prefference does not make a story bad, it just makes you not like it.  As far as SotC and this argument, I see where you are coming from because SotC has many more elements than just story, and most of them outweigh the simple tale.  To say that the tale is bad because it does live up to your personal standards isn't quite right, in my humble opinion.  Perhaps its that I dabble in writing from time to time myself, or because I read quite a bit, that I'm more apt to defend an author's work.  Perhaps you are more cynical when it comes to works that you feel are sub-par.

Are you telling me I shouldn't have an opinion?

How you distilled that wall of text down to me telling you not to have an opinion is beyond me.  The point of my post was thus:  an opinion does not make something a fact.  The story cannot be bad because your opinion of it is poor, rather you dislike the story.  It is your opinion that the story is bad, not a fact that it is.  Please opine to your heart's content.

In fact, I belive I said this just a few pages back:

DiebytheSword said . . .
As far as any particular idea being a pathogen to an industry, close mindedness is a pathogen to intellegent thought in general.  Even if you don't agree, its healthy for someone else to have a differing a opinion.

That would obviously suggest that I respect that you have an opinion and a place to say it.  Are you saying that I shouldn't have an opinion on your opinion?

I think I distilled your wall of text quite correctly. I understand your point, but I don't see the relevance. if I could read twilight from a little teeny boppers perspective than maybe it'd be relevant. but I can't. So, I really can't do what you do and be "open minded". If I dislike something I'm going to state it and throw a bunch of reasons as well.

And of course you may have an opinion on my opinion. We debated together, did we not? I'm always up for a good argument, but it felt like your point kind of descended into. "WELL THATS JUST YOUR OPINION" even though thats true, it really doesn't, nor could it, change anything.

As cocky as I come off sometimes, I know Its not fact, do I have to state "in my opinion" everytime? or the fact that im saying it is enough evidence of such.

[Kaiser Shepard]

TS2Aggie wrote...

No, sweetheart. There is no homophobic tirade. The association I made wasn't with the homphobic people, it was with the self-entitlement attitude. The feeling that if YOU don't want something in the game, no one should be allowed to have it because you can't bring yourself to not actively vie for it.

Yet the reverse somehow is true? Because the vocal and whining minorities want something, everyone else should simply budge?

[AdmiralCheez]

laecraft wrote...

If "sunshine" path exists, it's a major one, and it makes all the other paths useless. This is pretty obvious.

It's relative sunshine: sacrifices, tough decisions, and personal loss would still be experienced.  Additionally, the only people that would GET the "sunshine" path are the ones that deliberately shoot for it.  The average player wouldn't know how to get it, and those that do would stumble upon it by accident.

The trick is to, you know, not make the solutions obvious and/or 100% beneficial.  And on the player's part, to not read the guide.

Now, speaking of romances, the comparison is deliberately inacurate, because romances are only here for the player's enjoyment, and do not (or should not) affect the outcome of war with the Reapers.

Well, the attitude is pretty similar: "I don't want it, so no one can have it."

[Siegdrifa]

Xewaka wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
Yhea so you want the player to loose somethings no matter what he does, it's always a half  win or half loss, the player would get pissed easly, spending the whole game half failling is irritating and at some point i'm sure not all players will keep playing, since "what the hell, no matter what i do, i always loose something, better spend my time on something less frustrating" and less would do another half loss playthrough.
Most of players don't like to get punishement forced on them, even for drama and realism sake, this is an entertainement, not a survival simulation.

There is a species of mechanical eldritch abominations bent on destroying galactic civilization, a feat they have succeeded in for at least 37 million years. Yet you expect them to have the threat level of a box of kittens. I do believe there is a disconnection somewhere in the train of logic.

As i said earlier, the menace in video game usualy cover and impact as far as the main characters travels.
If your characters travel through a city, you often have to save the city, if your characters travel through a country, you often have to save the country, if your characters can travel through the galaxy then you will often have to save the galaxy, the menace is just scalling to cover the space you travel to make them have a matter story wise; but no, i don't find reapers menace more threatening than a shadow lord in his castel, the concept is often the same, the main characters are here to accomplish a "what it seems" and impossible task for normal characters.

If you buy "omg ! it's so more fearsome than anything else !" up to you, it doesn't mean the problem won't be solved.

[DiebytheSword]

laecraft wrote...

There's no "you saved more lives because you slept with this person." There's no score value attached to any of the romances. You don't feel like a failure for pursuing one romantic path and not choosing another. You won't be getting a better ending if you sleep with one character instead of another. It will not decide the outcome of the game.

. . . and only if you've killed every squadmate will you not save the galaxy from the collectors.  There's not value attached to any of the lives you lose in your command.  You don't feel like a failure because you didn't get your romance achievement . . . I mean everyone survives achievement.  You don't get a better ending depending on who lives or dies, other than Shep.  It still doesn't affect the outcome of the game unless you are going for the ultimate screw up.

I don't think its bad if everyone survives, I don't think its indicative of bad writing.  Bad game design for people like you perhaps, but not everyone desires death as a vehicle for gravitas.  Role playing games represent endless possibility, or they should.  Success and failure are at your fingertips, or should be.  Any time a choice is removed, it must be poignant. 

Garrus dieing because the ME forum demands it would be a shame.
Garrus dieing protecting something important to the character would be poignant and moving.

It all depends on how its handled, not whether or not it is forced upon us.

[Legbiter]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Self-medication via obsessive fandom is no way to go through life son.

Otherwise, a solid 7 in the heartfelt does-Bioware-even-care category.

Now go live real life.

FREE TIP: THEY DONT!

they only care about the MONIES!

Said while a single teardrop bathes in the darkness of indifference?

[Xilizhra]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Attitudes like the OP's are a cancer in the heart of this industry, and the entertainment industry in general.

I'm not asking for a DAII-style lack of choice or ability to make any difference at all (even though an everybody dies ending wouldn't be that bad for ME), but I do want better storytelling. The kind of storytelling one should expect, almost even demand, from a developer like BioWare. We shouldn't have to wait for the latest rare gem, a Shadow of the Colossus, Lost Odyssey or Prince of Persia, to get an elegant and decent enough story.

Is storytelling of a sub-par level - even compared to "mere" shooters - really more desireable than the dramatic death of Garrus, Liara or Anderson? Do we really need Thane live a normal and healthy life despite him introducing himself as a dying man? Do you really want Shepard to save the entire galaxy without any harm done to anyone, to have him get married with Tali or Miranda and use his magic sperm to impregnate them in the epilogue, just so you can have your happy sunshine ending?

It's quite ironic, really: for years people on here have looked down on stuff like Halo, Gears, Killzone and Call of Duty, claiming those games, their stories and respecting communities to be that much simpler than those found on the BioWare side of the fence... yet only here will one find people advocating against story integrity or against good storytelling. 

Um. How many times need I tell you that millions have died before the end of the first week, before the game even starts? IT'S NOT A COMPLETELY HAPPY STORY! IT PROBABLY ISN'T EVEN MOSTLY HAPPY! I wouldn't be so fixated on preventing squadmates specifically from getting killed if you weren't so fixated on killing them. But there are other ways to bring about drama aside from the cheapest variety of emotional manipulation.

[Valdrane78]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

laecraft wrote...

If "sunshine" path exists, it's a major one, and it makes all the other paths useless. This is pretty obvious.

It's relative sunshine: sacrifices, tough decisions, and personal loss would still be experienced.  Additionally, the only people that would GET the "sunshine" path are the ones that deliberately shoot for it.  The average player wouldn't know how to get it, and those that do would stumble upon it by accident.

The trick is to, you know, not make the solutions obvious and/or 100% beneficial.  And on the player's part, to not read the guide.

Now, speaking of romances, the comparison is deliberately inacurate, because romances are only here for the player's enjoyment, and do not (or should not) affect the outcome of war with the Reapers.

Well, the attitude is pretty similar: "I don't want it, so no one can have it."

He's right about the romances though, they should not affect the outcome of the war.  They are seperate plot arcs from the overall arc and just because I cheated on Ash because she was a she-**** from hell on Horizon doesn't mean she should have the pull to screw up alliances or something to that effect.

[Prince Zeel]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

It's not that SotC didn't resonate with ME. I'm perfectly capable of understanding why say Twilight of all shtty things resonates with others when it would not for me. SotC has no message, is what I'm saying. It's like he called it. "Simplistic". Its not meant to resonate. which is indeed its charm. So, though i'm bashing SotC right now, I hope its clear that I LOVED the game, the story was okay, but deserves no special mention.

The fact that it was simplistic doesn't immediately invalidate any possible leason to be learned from it. Depth means nothing as long as there's nothing done with it, whereas a simple story that manages to be elegant and use the elements it is given while maintaining consistency can easily surpass the former. Which is one of my issues with Mass Effect: we have all these races and galactic politics and such, but they contribute little to the game as an experience.

As for SotC's lesson, I suppose a biblical quote would best summarize it:

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the world, but loses his own soul?"

Matthew 16:26, I believe.

I agree, it was a well executed game. I LIKED all these aspects. 

I also agree that Mass effect is a game filled with a bunch of themes, none really investigated. Though I think expectation like that is better left for books and maybe shows.

You're not understanding my position. The story had no message, because of that, IN MY OPINION, it deserves no special mention. I don't care if it was simplistic. simplistic stories can have messages.


Using a bible quote is probably the worst arguing platform i've ever seen. btw.

[Arcadian Legend]

Zeel, lay off, so people can calm the **** down. They got your view on things. Leave it at that. You guys too. Don't wanna see any banhammers handed out today. I'm honestly suprised a mod/admin hasn't intervened in this topic already.

[Captain_Obvious]

KBomb wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...
I'm sorry, I haven't actually seen anyone here wanting consequence-free choices.

That is exactly what everybody complaining about a "forced" bittersweet ending and wanting a fully happy ending is asking for.

I haven't seen anyone asking for a "fully happy ending". The majority of people on here are fine with sacrifices and consequences being made. I wonder how many would complain about a "forced" ending were it a happy one?

Then I'll probably be the first.  I want my happy ending.  I want my five-years-in-the-making, twenty-something-Shepards, no-more-being-bummed-like-Virmire, no-one-gets-left-behind, the-galaxy-is-saved, cowboys-riding-into-the-sunset happy ending.  I'm not fine with sacrifices and consequences IF it means I don't get my uber-happy ending no matter what choices I make.  Five years, people.  I want my happy ending, no matter what.  I probably won't get it, and I'll live just fine either way, but I want my happy ending. 

I don't play games to be an average joe who has to work for a living.  I don't play Street Cleaning Simulator.  I play games to save the galaxy, restore the hope of all mankind, and to strike fear in the hearts of criminals everywhere.  I don't want my ending to be everyone's ending.  I don't want to be forced into a happy ending, but neither do I want to be forced into a bittersweet ending.  All I want is the option to jump through the right hoops to get my picket fence or little brood of blue babies.     

[DiebytheSword]

Prince Zeel wrote...

I think I distilled your wall of text quite correctly. I understand your point, but I don't see the relevance. if I could read twilight from a little teeny boppers perspective than maybe it'd be relevant. but I can't. So, I really can't do what you do and be "open minded". If I dislike something I'm going to state it and throw a bunch of reasons as well.

And of course you may have an opinion on my opinion. We debated together, did we not? I'm always up for a good argument, but it felt like your point kind of descended into. "WELL THATS JUST YOUR OPINION" even though thats true, it really doesn't, nor could it, change anything.

As cocky as I come off sometimes, I know Its not fact, do I have to state "in my opinion" everytime? or the fact that im saying it is enough evidence of such.

Perhaps its just semantics, but when you say something is poorly written, that suggest that it is actually poorly written.  I'm more apt to say that I didn't care for it, which to me suggests a different line of thinking.  Was the story bad, or did you not like it because you felt it was bad?  Those are often two different things, and I've seen many personal likes and dislikes expressed like that.  I suppose the point would be to understand where you were coming from with your criticism.  Did it have bad grammar, use overwraught tropes or perhaps tread on ground that you found to be sacred?  If we are sharing ideas through debate, then it would stand that I need to understand your opinion, not just have it.

I have my answers, and I am satisfied.

[Prince Zeel]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

I think I distilled your wall of text quite correctly. I understand your point, but I don't see the relevance. if I could read twilight from a little teeny boppers perspective than maybe it'd be relevant. but I can't. So, I really can't do what you do and be "open minded". If I dislike something I'm going to state it and throw a bunch of reasons as well.

And of course you may have an opinion on my opinion. We debated together, did we not? I'm always up for a good argument, but it felt like your point kind of descended into. "WELL THATS JUST YOUR OPINION" even though thats true, it really doesn't, nor could it, change anything.

As cocky as I come off sometimes, I know Its not fact, do I have to state "in my opinion" everytime? or the fact that im saying it is enough evidence of such.

Perhaps its just semantics, but when you say something is poorly written, that suggest that it is actually poorly written.  I'm more apt to say that I didn't care for it, which to me suggests a different line of thinking.  Was the story bad, or did you not like it because you felt it was bad?  Those are often two different things, and I've seen many personal likes and dislikes expressed like that.  I suppose the point would be to understand where you were coming from with your criticism.  Did it have bad grammar, use overwraught tropes or perhaps tread on ground that you found to be sacred?  If we are sharing ideas through debate, then it would stand that I need to understand your opinion, not just have it.

I have my answers, and I am satisfied.

Definitely semantics. I'm just more "aggressive" than you. As you can probably tell. Interesting debate while it lasted.

[Siegdrifa]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

No, sweetheart. There is no homophobic tirade. The association I made wasn't with the homphobic people, it was with the self-entitlement attitude. The feeling that if YOU don't want something in the game, no one should be allowed to have it because you can't bring yourself to not actively vie for it.

Yet the reverse somehow is true? Because the vocal and whining minorities want something, everyone else should simply budge?

 Nope, they are not asking for a forced happy ending while some want to strongly force a doomed fate on everybody.

Other note:
rule number one of forcing your point of view on other and diminish the importance of their opinion , use adjectif stating they are a minority / don't understand what is good.
This what saw in your post, you are welcom to share your opinion even your view of what ME3 should be for you, but if you just want to treat opinion of other as "cancer", that they "can't distinguish what is a story from what is a bad story" and state "whinning minority", pleas refrain from posting.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 07 octobre 2011 - 11:34 .

[DiebytheSword]

Prince Zeel wrote...

I also agree that Mass effect is a game filled with a bunch of themes, none really investigated. Though I think expectation like that is better left for books and maybe shows.

We can agree on this point, Mass Effect 2 was not keen on revisiting plot threads introduced in the first.  I will reserve judgment until ME3.

Prince Zeel wrote...

Definitely semantics. I'm just more "aggressive" than you. As you can probably tell. Interesting debate while it lasted.

Quite, thank you for indulging my curiosity.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 07 octobre 2011 - 11:33 .

[Prince Zeel]

Don't hold your breath. This so called "EVERYTHING WILL BE RESOLVED" mantra they've been pushing seems idealistic at best.

[AdmiralCheez]

Valdrane78 wrote...

He's right about the romances though, they should not affect the outcome of the war.  They are seperate plot arcs from the overall arc and just because I cheated on Ash because she was a she-**** from hell on Horizon doesn't mean she should have the pull to screw up alliances or something to that effect.

Of course they don't, and they shouldn't.  It's the assumption that one's opinion is correct and that everyone else is a moron that I have a problem with.  It's the bizarre train of thought that 100% of players will do everything absolutely perfect and know exactly how every choice plays out the first time they play it that bugs me.

If you cannot resist the temptation of looking up spoilers and metagaming the sh*t out of everything, you have only yourself to blame.

[The Spamming Troll]

WTF!

no cute pictures admiral?

[Kaiser Shepard]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Using a bible quote is probably the worst arguing platform i've ever seen. btw.

I'm not using it to argue, I simply thought it was the best to summarize that particular game's lesson.

Also, I felt like making a Castlevania reference...

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 07 octobre 2011 - 11:35 .

[Xilizhra]

I've noticed a very distinct trend here: the "possible best ending" people are either Paragons or some shade of neutral, while the "kill everyone" people are Renegades. This intrigues me.

[Prince Zeel]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

Using a bible quote is probably the worst arguing platform i've ever seen. btw.

I'm not using it to argue, I simply thought it was the best to summarize that particular game's lesson.

Also, I felt like making a Castlevania reference...

you are right. bad wording.
"Using a bible quote is the worst way to end a post"

ah, better.

[AdmiralCheez]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Also, I felt like making a Castlevania reference...

It is never a bad time to reference cool nerdy sh*t.

[DiebytheSword]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Don't hold your breath. This so called "EVERYTHING WILL BE RESOLVED" mantra they've been pushing seems idealistic at best.

Oh I'm not.  On that note, my judgement will be based on how many of those threads were resolved and how many were left purposefully mysterious for sake of intrigue.  Everything need not be resolved for the story to be good.  In fact, I find that to be more timesome than a full sunshine ending (which I will gun for because my main Shepard rolls like that.)

[Someone With Mass]

Xilizhra wrote...

I've noticed a very distinct trend here: the "possible best ending" people are either Paragons or some shade of neutral, while the "kill everyone" people are Renegades. This intrigues me.

Not that surprising, though.