385 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Besides that some of those claimed plot holes aren't plot holes, any more than the Crucible is a deus ex machina (another common claim), what lacks closure is also in dispute.

For some people, it's not having epilogue slides. For others, it's the lack of love interests. For some, it's simply the fact that Shepard dies.

The Crucible is not a DEM, it's a MacGuffin. the Catalyst is the Diabolus Ex Machina that commonly gets mistaken for a Deus Ex Machina. And yes, there are numerous plot-holes that are extremely valid (why didn't the Catalyst activate the Citadel Relay in ME1? Why didn't the Reapers use the Citadel to shut down the Charon Relay and prevent the Crucible from being moved into possition? Why are our squadmates on the normandy with joker in Relay transit? Synthesis ending?)

The closure issue requires more effort than I'm willing to put forth at the moment to address.

[Nekroso22]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Besides that some of those claimed plot holes aren't plot holes, any more than the Crucible is a deus ex machina (another common claim), what lacks closure is also in dispute.

For some people, it's not having epilogue slides. For others, it's the lack of love interests. For some, it's simply the fact that Shepard dies.

Which leads us neatly back to the actual most common argument: lack of player choice.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

"
His assumptions were actually statistics. "

You are =/= You are likely to be.

"Bioware's job in managing expectations is telling you what they intend to do. If you expect more, the only person to blame is yourself."

This is asinine, to blame myself for believing what Bioware says and to expect the themes of the game to remain constant.

"The quality isn't important. Their nature is: ME3's finale was a near copy of the ME1 finale in structure and variance. ME2's was even less."

The problem is the ultimate result of the story, not the mechanical similarity. 

"Bioware is making a lot of money from ME3. Bioware is still a standard-setter in quality epic RPGs. Bioware has a well-deserved reputation for self-improvement and internal review. Bioware has overcome fan-hysteria and denouncing before, and had then-reviled products looked back with nostalgia."

I keep taking long term, you talk about short term. Not the same thing. Our projections of what will happen are totally different.

"Bioware is in a very sound position. They can continue to produce quality works, and have not only future opportunities but past successes to point towards as a basis for others to come back to them."

I think your pulse of Bioware's general reputation is simply wrong.

"You have time access to a computer with internet, an XBOX, and a copy of Mass Effect 3"

My life situation has changed recently. I do not appreciate you acting like you know something about me when you don't.

"and live in a city."

OK?

"You are well above the global average."

Dude, if you're going to say to me "suck it up you're not starving and dead in a ditch" and go all "first world problems" on me like nothing bad can happen to people who aren't experiencing the worst in the world. To say I am above average income when I have zero income is wrong and an asinine statement. Your view of the world is absurd and unsympathetic. 

"The keep it measured. There's nothing wrong with saying 'I didn't like it.' There is a weakness in saying 'it's important.'"

It's important to me. There is no true weakness in that. Not commiting to things or allowing things to be important to you is living a life without risk but less happiness.

"Sure. And it's my perogative to tell you that the extent of your claimed unhappiness is unreasonable."

It's my perogative to say you are completely wrong and the standards you use to measure importance don't make sense in any kind of every day view of life, it's basically like you think people should never have personal problems because someone else is starving. Forget psychological aspects of humans I guess.

Modifié par PKchu, 15 mars 2012 - 04:05 .

[Ocenale]

 Funny, you use the Chicago Bulls, an NBA team, as your example of why we "don't matter".

The NBA just had a funny issue where over half the league was losing money because the fans didn't like the product.

[kato42]

Bioware - EA may well assume that we are guaranteed assets. That is a very, bad assumption. I strongly suspect they will find that they are very wrong.

And I'll say it again, the ending wasn't clever, it wasn't artistic, it was stupid, and it was illogical.

We have you right to your (wrong) opinion, but we also have our right to ours.

And more importantly, we have our right to how we will spend our money, and our money won't be going to these guys if this is what they are going to do.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Drak41n wrote...

You're elevating game play over story again.  The story in Mass Effect 2 was how Shepard was going to build a team to overcome insurmountable odds.  It's not surprising that the team was a big focus, the team determined the success, or failure, of the mission.  It was the mission, though, that dicated everything you did.  You didn't confront the collectors because Mordin told you to.[/quote]The story in ME2 was twelve different character expositions. The Collectors were a framing device to tie them together, and it was the only thing tying them together.


[quote]
Of course, nothing required that you build the full team, nor did it require that you do all the side quests for your team.  That was up to you.  To say that team was the entire focus of Mass Effect 2 is just  wrong.[/quote]Count the number of squadmate-centric missions, and count the number of story missions. Squadmates weren't mere optional add-ons: Loyalty Missions were the primary means of RPG Big Decisions in the game, and were an integral part of the trilogy storyline. Some more than others, of course.

[quote]
  Mass Effect 2 also introduced Cerberus and how they fit into humanity's place in the universe.  [/quote]Except ME1 already did that, in a different way. And then the novels cast Cerberus in a different manner. And ME3 did another.

Cerberus has gone from Black Ops to private Cabal to on the brink of survival to massive military power in the course of three games. It is plot play.

[quote]
It also focused on the Reaper's methods and how frighteningly advanced and organized they were.  [/quote]We already knew that, though: in ME1.
[quote]
It was also demonstrated how unprepared the council was.  Everything you did - build your team, upgrade your ship, even scan planets, you did because you needed to prepare for the suicide mission.  That was the focus.  That was the reason you built your team.[/quote]It was the framing device. There is a difference: it's interesting to note that only one companion joins Shepard after Jacob and Miranda knowing the purpose of why they signed on, and Thane admits he was looking for any sort of suicide mission.

[quote]
Tali and Garrus came back because their characters were awesome.  They were awesome because of how they were portrayed in Mass Effect, and fans wanted them back.  That alone undermines your argument that Mass Effect had flat, meaningless characters. [/quote]Besides that I never made that claim, Tali and Garrus came back as different characters in ME2. Tali grew a different personality from the ME1 codex-with-legs, while Garrus actually regressed as a character.

[quote]
Beyond that, relationships are also important in a story because they form how we related to different figures within that story.  It's important to see how Legion and Tali interact because it informs us about how that galaxy works and the potential for change based on that relationship.[/quote]Except it doesn't: it tells us how Tali interacts. Tali is so far out of the representative-of-her-species in ME2 that she becomes a scapegoat.


[quote]
Ignoring that, I have to say that your argument confuses me.  You seem to suggest that accolades negate people's complaint about how the story ends.  [/quote]I don't.
[quote]
That doesn't makes sense because I haven't seen people say Mass Effect 3 sucks.[/quote]Look a bit harder.

[quote]
You also say the game is great, but you turn around and criticize the story when it suits your purpose.  Are you just being contrary to be contrary?[/quote]I recognize that even great things have flaws, and I enjoy things despite their flaws.

Few things are more ruinous to enjoyment than selective demands for perfection.

[/quote]

[Halo Quea]

Ocenale wrote...

 Funny, you use the Chicago Bulls, an NBA team, as your example of why we "don't matter".

The NBA just had a funny issue where over half the league was losing money because the fans didn't like the product.

OUCH! That is the truth!    So indeed that WAS a poor analogy. 

[Dean_the_Young]

thealgebraist wrote...

I never said the entire game was horrible, you are distracting.

I didn't say you did. I was referring to the people I was reffering to when you quoted me.

Rebranding my arguement doesn't work. It's not a statistical fallacy, because I'm talking about the impact not composition.

But I am talking composition, and you're challenging my argument by rebranding it. I made the position first.

Are you really trying to argue that in terms of overall impact a small percent of something can't carry more weight than the majority?

Since I explicitly say otherwise, no.

My response has not been devoid of critical thinking, nor logical thinking. I have evaluated the game on both an emotional and intellectual level.

Congratulations. I wasn't talking about you.

[Drak41n]

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...
Why didn't the Catalyst activate the Citadel Relay in ME1?

That one is easy: because the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel.

It applied then, and can still apply now.

Why didn't the Reapers use the Citadel to shut down the Charon Relay and prevent the Crucible from being moved into possition?

The possession of the Reaper IFF can answer that.

Why are our squadmates on the normandy with joker in Relay transit? Synthesis ending?)

That's actually the real one.

[Axolotl Shepard]

Sports teams don't really work now do they? Ever heard of teams being relocated? It's when fans get fed up and don't come back. Successful franchises can be run into the ground. And that's what's happened here. Maybe your grasp of the English language is beyond the common forum dweller's, but your grasp of the world is weak. Maybe you should put down the dictionary and pick up a newspaper.

[Dean_the_Young]

Drak41n wrote...

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

It did meet the quality of the rest of the franchise. That's the problem.

[wesr]

I do agree they see us as nothing but checkbooks with legs but that can change really easily as word of mouth spreads and reviews keep crashing.

[Drak41n]

I don't think it did. Whose opinion is more valid?

[Dean_the_Young]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Besides that some of those claimed plot holes aren't plot holes, any more than the Crucible is a deus ex machina (another common claim), what lacks closure is also in dispute.

For some people, it's not having epilogue slides. For others, it's the lack of love interests. For some, it's simply the fact that Shepard dies.

Which leads us neatly back to the actual most common argument: lack of player choice.

You had more choice in the ME3 ending than you had in either of the other games.

The actual complaint should be the lack of choice differentiation, but Mass Effect has always been tepid on that at best. The difference of ME1 was an additional five-second cutscene and a modified post-game dialogue with different lighting. ME2 was just the different-lighting and coversation.

Mass Effect has always been extremely minimalist with the ending differences.

[Cody211282]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

It did meet the quality of the rest of the franchise. That's the problem.

See that problem there is in the minds of a lot of people it didn't it fell short in so many ways. If you like the endings then good, just don't say we are wrong for being upset.

[Tony208]

To sum up what he's saying:

He thinks our opinions don't matter.
The ending works because he likes it.
We're too stupid.
We will give money to Bioware regardless.
Huge plot holes are ok, just use your imagination.

He also had some good points in there but they were overshadowed by all the pretentiousness.

Modifié par Tony208, 15 mars 2012 - 03:47 .

[8666737]

All I wanted after playing non-stop in that extremely depressing ME3 was to sit on a beach with Liara and some blue babies, is that too much to ask for?

[Dean_the_Young]

Drak41n wrote...

I don't think it did. Whose opinion is more valid?

The one who can defend it better.

How were the other endings of the series significantly better than the quality of the ME3 ending?

[Dean_the_Young]

Cody211282 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

It did meet the quality of the rest of the franchise. That's the problem.

See that problem there is in the minds of a lot of people it didn't it fell short in so many ways. If you like the endings then good, just don't say we are wrong for being upset.

Fortunately I'm not saying that.

[Nekroso22]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That one is easy: because the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel.

It applied then, and can still apply now.

Come on now, Dean. Too convenient, too quick and easy. It was thrown in without considering the events in the first game.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

It did meet the quality of the rest of the franchise. That's the problem.

OK...we should have had lower expectations because the franchise is of low quality.

I think you're projecting a really rare perspective on a lot of other people and thus getting your odd conclusions. For anything else you might say, the people here are going to disagree with you about the quality of the franchise.

[thealgebraist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

thealgebraist wrote...

I never said the entire game was horrible, you are distracting.

I didn't say you did. I was referring to the people I was reffering to when you quoted me.

Rebranding my arguement doesn't work. It's not a statistical fallacy, because I'm talking about the impact not composition.

But I am talking composition, and you're challenging my argument by rebranding it. I made the position first.

Are you really trying to argue that in terms of overall impact a small percent of something can't carry more weight than the majority?

Since I explicitly say otherwise, no.

My response has not been devoid of critical thinking, nor logical thinking. I have evaluated the game on both an emotional and intellectual level.

Congratulations. I wasn't talking about you.

Rubbish. I didn't rebrand your arguement. I challanged it's premise and said that your comparison didn't deserve the merit because it deliberately ignored a pertinent point. I took your statistical comparison and described why I thought it couldn't be treated as such. Wasn't you comparison statistical? Where did I rebrand it to? You took my comment about 'effective weight' of portions of the story, but reduced it to a simple ratio. And we are back to your statistical stand point. No?

I never said you were talking about me, I was suggesting that your critical thinking/emotional response line was also more flawed than you admit. 'Congratulations.'

In terms of stating explicitly the opposite in regards to effective weight, then why on earth did you attempt to counter my point? You certainly can't be doing both at once and remain cohernt. You either believe that a 98% great game cannot be significantly affected by 2% badness, or you don't. My arguement suggests a reason why I can, you're arguement suggests a reason why it cannot. 

[Dean_the_Young]

PKchu wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

It did meet the quality of the rest of the franchise. That's the problem.

OK...we should have had lower expectations because the franchise is of low quality.

I think you're projecting a really rare perspective on a lot of other people and thus getting your odd conclusions. For anything else you might say, the people here are going to disagree with you about the quality of the franchise.

The quality of the franchise is fine. The nature of the franchise endings has been consistent.

People being surprised at the consistency are the ones with odd conclusions.

[Eralrik]

It's funny i was at my local Wal-Mart today and I skimmed through the video game section and saw Mass Effect 3 marked down to 19.99 for pc and 29.99 for xbox & ps3 i'm like ok must be on sale and asked the clerk he said nope its what came down from the home office, said it must be a bad game to get a price drop that quickly as he didn't play games himself.
Ah well I love the Mass Effect Series and I may or may not support BW in the future just depends, though I still have yet to play any NCSoft titles even dumped the Beta invite for Guild Wars 2 all because the canceled my favorite game Tabula Rasa so i boycotted all their games.
It all depends on the person and the customers but in the end its up to Bioware if they choose to lay off emplyee's for a failed game and move them else where. Just like the Grampa telling the kid about the Bioware Legend <replace Shepard> and asking for another story and the sad music begins...