Aller au contenu

Photo

California Literary Review gives ME3 2.5/5 stars, due to the ending


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
350 réponses à ce sujet

#176
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Caz Neerg wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

(And no, writer, it wasn't nihilism. And since destroying the Reapers was always going to be genocide, you better have been complaining about it before. And the Reapers were only super-imposing if you didn't think on how they could have easily ****ed things up by acting smarter in the other games.)


If you think the current endings aren't fundamentally nihilistic, you either don't understand the logical consequences of the endings, or you don't understand nihilism.

Or I could understand both better than a lot of people who project things that don't actually apply.

Like not insisting that the nature of the relay destruction through he Crucible Effect is the same as having a meteorite slammed into a passive relay. Or ignorring that FTL still exists.

#177
Dracowulf

Dracowulf
  • Members
  • 89 messages
Leave it to the students, readers, and writers of and about literature to make a superbly-written and well-reasoned review.

I want to shake this man's hand.

#178
Montana

Montana
  • Members
  • 993 messages
The ending does bring down the general score of the game, and the whole series tbh.

Well written review.

#179
Deflagratio

Deflagratio
  • Members
  • 2 513 messages
I think a bigger factor in the 2.5 is simply that so many people rated Mass Effect 3 at the 9+, despite pissing away the entire narrative of all the previous games in 10 minutes.

Without it's strong story, Mass Effect 3 is just a 6.0 game. Technically adept, with nothing that really separates it from anything else. The writing brought the Mass Effect series above it's "Okay" to "Pretty bad" gameplay, into the annals of gaming legend.

To throw that away in 10 minutes is an achievement, I'll admit, but the worst possible kind.

#180
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Out of curiosity, how did they rate ME1 and ME2? Those games themselves had some notable flaws as well. And by notable, systematic throughout the games, rather than isolated in the finale.


Really? ME1 and ME2 had systemic thematic issues? Well, I'd love to hear them.

#181
JPR1964

JPR1964
  • Members
  • 791 messages
This is a great review!!!!

Thanks!!!

Hold the line...

JPR out!

#182
Dragoonlordz

Dragoonlordz
  • Members
  • 9 920 messages

WarBaby2 wrote...

So much for "it's art".^^

Come on BW, admit you made a bubu and fix it!

Hold the line!


It's still art.

Take Damien Hirst's "art", I think it's terrible but my god it sure makes a lot of money, so someone must think it's pretty amazing art.

#183
Gibb_Shepard

Gibb_Shepard
  • Members
  • 3 694 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

(And no, writer, it wasn't nihilism. And since destroying the Reapers was always going to be genocide, you better have been complaining about it before. And the Reapers were only super-imposing if you didn't think on how they could have easily ****ed things up by acting smarter in the other games.)


If you think the current endings aren't fundamentally nihilistic, you either don't understand the logical consequences of the endings, or you don't understand nihilism.

Or I could understand both better than a lot of people who project things that don't actually apply.

Like not insisting that the nature of the relay destruction through he Crucible Effect is the same as having a meteorite slammed into a passive relay. Or ignorring that FTL still exists.


It would take decades for the Quarians to get back to their system. Same as the Turians. Without fuel. Or food.

#184
HKR148

HKR148
  • Members
  • 734 messages
Well if a respected authority in literature tells to the public that ME3 storyline is absolutely rubbish.. what more possibly could we want.

#185
Chromie

Chromie
  • Members
  • 9 881 messages

Dragoonlordz wrote...

WarBaby2 wrote...

So much for "it's art".^^

Come on BW, admit you made a bubu and fix it!

Hold the line!


It's still art.

Take Damien Hirst's "art", I think it's terrible but my god it sure makes a lot of money, so someone must think it's pretty amazing art.


That doesn't explain the sudden shift at the end. Mass Effect 1,2 and 3 (well until the end) never tried being vague or "deep" and imo they failed. This is not Deus Ex 1 do not try to make it so Bioware. Mass Effect was not built up that way since the beginning. From a literary standpoint I do agree it's just atrocious.

Modifié par Skelter192, 18 mars 2012 - 06:01 .


#186
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

In Exile wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Out of curiosity, how did they rate ME1 and ME2? Those games themselves had some notable flaws as well. And by notable, systematic throughout the games, rather than isolated in the finale.


Really? ME1 and ME2 had systemic thematic issues? Well, I'd love to hear them.

The depiction of the Terminus, Paragon/Renegade consistency, carry-over setup and execution, plot-focus, character interaction, Choices and Consequences, differentiation between Paragon and Renegade Councils, the handling of Cerberus in terms of history/ability/nature, raised and dropped plot threads, and a number of remembered gameplay issues (the most famous being vehicals and resource gathering).

#187
BadlyBrowned

BadlyBrowned
  • Members
  • 567 messages
Not sure why people focus so much on the essentially arbitrary numbers of a review score. Not just here, but in general in regards to reviews.

The real review is in the words, and I really do agree with everything written about the game in there. The endings were narrative suicide.

#188
Law8519

Law8519
  • Members
  • 20 messages
Really good article :)

#189
Noatz

Noatz
  • Members
  • 720 messages

It's still art.

Take Damien Hirst's "art", I think it's terrible but my god it sure makes a lot of money, so someone must think it's pretty amazing art.


That depends, to compare the two you really need to imagine one of Hirst's stuffed cows being rigged with a bomb that caused it to explode rancid entrails over everyone viewing it just as they began to walk away.

#190
GiBBsBoT05

GiBBsBoT05
  • Members
  • 208 messages
How can they give it a 2.5? Well, can an ending ruin a story? Yes.
What is the most important aspect of Mass Effect? The story.

#191
Caz Neerg

Caz Neerg
  • Members
  • 625 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

(And no, writer, it wasn't nihilism. And since destroying the Reapers was always going to be genocide, you better have been complaining about it before. And the Reapers were only super-imposing if you didn't think on how they could have easily ****ed things up by acting smarter in the other games.)


If you think the current endings aren't fundamentally nihilistic, you either don't understand the logical consequences of the endings, or you don't understand nihilism.

Or I could understand both better than a lot of people who project things that don't actually apply.

Like not insisting that the nature of the relay destruction through he Crucible Effect is the same as having a meteorite slammed into a passive relay. Or ignorring that FTL still exists.


True, the meteorite argument is stupid.  It's observably the case, with the only relay we actually see explode, that the energy from that explosion is all directed into the beam that leaves the system.  But the mere fact that FTL exists, while it provides the theoretical possibility for the *next* generation of some species, it does absolutely nothing for any of the characters you actually meet or care about over the course of the trilogy.  The Quarian and Turian fleets?  Going to run out of food and starve to death long before being able to resupply.  The peace Shepard built?  Unlikely to last with all of the military forces of every species crammed together in Sol system.  His crew?  More likely than not stuck on ME Edition Gilligan's Island, where either Garrus and Tali or everybody else will starve.

The fundamental problem is that the way the series was presented, up until the last five minutes, was as being primarily about characters, not plot, and the way it treats all of those characters in the end is fundamentally nihilistic.  The absolute best case scenario for anyone Shepard actually cares about is that they get to die slow of starvation, or in some other way previously preventable by galactic infrastructure or easy access to technology.  This ending makes "grimdark" look like rainbows and unicorns.  It makes the Chronicles of Riddick look like  Care Bears: the Movie.

Modifié par Caz Neerg, 18 mars 2012 - 06:08 .


#192
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The depiction of the Terminus, Paragon/Renegade consistency, carry-over setup and execution, plot-focus, character interaction, Choices and Consequences, differentiation between Paragon and Renegade Councils, the handling of Cerberus in terms of history/ability/nature, raised and dropped plot threads, and a number of remembered gameplay issues (the most famous being vehicals and resource gathering).


I see I need to define what thematic means.

thematic [θɪˈmætɪk]adj1. of, relating to, or consisting of a theme or themes
And a theme is:

2. a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

So, no, these don't speak to unifying and dominant ideas. A theme would be something like, I don't know... "the created always rise up against their creators" and "conflict between synethic and organic life is inevitable".

So, no, listing a long series of flaws with ME the games does not amount to listing a criticism of the theme of the game.

#193
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It would take decades for the Quarians to get back to their system. Same as the Turians. Without fuel. Or food.

Besides that food can be grown on, you know, Live ships and the equivalents, fuel still exists across the galaxy: colonies not touched, and the ability to fabricate processors to handle it that you could take with you.

It might be a decades long journey that might require months or even years to prepare for, but no one says they have to leave immediately. And that, of course, ignores that the species already exist back home. We're not even talking about 'and the entire species picks up and leaves': we're talking 'and the soldiers finally arrive home.' And most species didn't even give the Alliance everything they had.


Really, here's all that's required to justify a species's military getting back home: the ability to re-establish fuel processing in the vicinity of Sol, and a basis for being able to provide food. Food not already carried in can be grown on ships, or found from nearby colony worlds. Fuel processing can be jusfied by the Crucible fleet using its engineering resources to re-tap Sol's planets. The Quarians definitely have the ability to feed Dextros, while both Earth (from food stores and gradual re-development) and the established local garden worlds can feed the regulars.


Once that inital preparation is established, it's just 'the big journey.' It becomes the responsibility to prove it can't happen to reject it as a literary device.

#194
dbt-kenny

dbt-kenny
  • Members
  • 411 messages

Killer3000ad wrote...

Another non-gaming site calls the endings like it is, ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. And literature and ARTS site to boot!

Yes Bioware, even the experts on literature and ARTS think your artsy and deep ending was crap.



Not that they will give a hoot about that the ARTS say but it does put a big hole in there defence artstic licence

#195
vigna

vigna
  • Members
  • 1 947 messages
Ouch. This Hurts You Bioware!

I can't even enjoy that kind of hurt. That stings me. Ouch.

#196
Klijpope

Klijpope
  • Members
  • 591 messages
Actually this almost objectively proves videogames can be a form of art.

The 9/10 reviews were reviewing it as just a game.

This 2.5/5 review is reviewing it as a story - so like a book, or a play, or a film. It knows it isn't any of those things, that it is interactive, and is able to coherently articulate that.

This, and the wealth of pro and semi-pro articles cropping up everywhere are showing some of the most insightful definition of what art is and how it functions in an interactive medium that I have ever seen.

All this in response to a game's last 5 minutes.

It kinda proves Mass Effect is a work of art; just a flawed one. The bittersweet ending is not for us as players/consumers/audience - it is for BioWare, as it shows just how close they were to making a work of genius, and how sadly they blundered at the last hurdle.

Modifié par Klijpope, 18 mars 2012 - 06:14 .


#197
ninjaman001

ninjaman001
  • Members
  • 91 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

(And no, writer, it wasn't nihilism. And since destroying the Reapers was always going to be genocide, you better have been complaining about it before. And the Reapers were only super-imposing if you didn't think on how they could have easily ****ed things up by acting smarter in the other games.)


If you think the current endings aren't fundamentally nihilistic, you either don't understand the logical consequences of the endings, or you don't understand nihilism.

Or I could understand both better than a lot of people who project things that don't actually apply.

Like not insisting that the nature of the relay destruction through he Crucible Effect is the same as having a meteorite slammed into a passive relay. Or ignorring that FTL still exists.


Doesn't matter if FTL still exists, if they travel for too far(like farther than just local clusters of star systems) they need somewhere with a high gravity well to discharge their drive cores. Which as we know, in dark space between star clusters it's nearly impossible to find a "rogue"(ancient planets that have escaped or been ejected from a  star system) planet large enough or to even find a planet in the first place.

#198
Gibb_Shepard

Gibb_Shepard
  • Members
  • 3 694 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It would take decades for the Quarians to get back to their system. Same as the Turians. Without fuel. Or food.

Besides that food can be grown on, you know, Live ships and the equivalents, fuel still exists across the galaxy: colonies not touched, and the ability to fabricate processors to handle it that you could take with you.

It might be a decades long journey that might require months or even years to prepare for, but no one says they have to leave immediately. And that, of course, ignores that the species already exist back home. We're not even talking about 'and the entire species picks up and leaves': we're talking 'and the soldiers finally arrive home.' And most species didn't even give the Alliance everything they had.


Really, here's all that's required to justify a species's military getting back home: the ability to re-establish fuel processing in the vicinity of Sol, and a basis for being able to provide food. Food not already carried in can be grown on ships, or found from nearby colony worlds. Fuel processing can be jusfied by the Crucible fleet using its engineering resources to re-tap Sol's planets. The Quarians definitely have the ability to feed Dextros, while both Earth (from food stores and gradual re-development) and the established local garden worlds can feed the regulars.


Once that inital preparation is established, it's just 'the big journey.' It becomes the responsibility to prove it can't happen to reject it as a literary device.


I love how you had to make many, many assumptions for this whole theory to work.

#199
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Caz Neerg wrote...

True, the meteorite argument is stupid.  It's observably the case, with the only relay we actually see explode, that the energy from that explosion is all directed into the beam that leaves the system. 

What we also observe is that the Crucible-destruction of the relays is different: energy is being used to power the Crucible effect, which is itself FTL in speed. Power isn't just being converted into an Arrival-style destruction.


But the mere fact that FTL exists, while it provides the theoretical possibility for the *next* generation of some species, it does absolutely nothing for any of the characters you actually meet or care about over the course of the trilogy. 

Sure it does. They have the speed.

Bar short-lived people like the Salarians.

The Quarian and Turian fleets?  Going to run out of food and starve to death long before being able to resupply.

Food can be grown on ships, like the Quarians do. Fuel can be salvaged from intact or destroyed colonies along the way, or processing capability can be taken along with.

 The peace Shepard built?  Unlikely to last with all of the military forces of every species crammed together in Sol system.

It's a big system, an empty planet, and those who want to leave can prepare to do so.

 His crew?  More likely than not stuck on ME Edition Gilligan's Island, where either Garrus and Tali or everybody else will starve.

Unless they have communications ability and call/simply are found and rescued.

It's clearly a garden world, of course, so some part of the crew will survive.

The fundamental problem is that the way the series was presented, up until the last five minutes, was as being primarily about characters, not plot, and the way it treats all of those characters in the end is fundamentally nihilistic.  The absolute best case scenario for anyone Shepard actually cares about is that they get to die slow of starvation, or in some other way previously preventable by galactic infrastructure or easy access to technology.  This ending makes "grimdark" look like rainbows and unicorns.  It makes the Chronicles of Riddick look like  Care Bears: the Movie.

Besides that the 'primarily about characters' is an opinion of the series as a whole, it still isn't nihilistic. You might be, but people who aren't don't have to take the same thing away from it as you do.

The best case scenario is that the people Shepard cares about suffer a reduced but livable level of society, with the people of the Normandy who can't live be picked up and with the fellow armies gradually making a long trip home. Many of the largest worlds, ie the ones which couldn't survive on their own, are already reduced, while galactic civilization will indisputably regrow from those that can even without readjustments.

A post-war always has famine and rebalancing, but only the extent, not the nature, is affected by the loss of the Relays.

#200
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It would take decades for the Quarians to get back to their system. Same as the Turians. Without fuel. Or food.

Besides that food can be grown on, you know, Live ships and the equivalents, fuel still exists across the galaxy: colonies not touched, and the ability to fabricate processors to handle it that you could take with you.

It might be a decades long journey that might require months or even years to prepare for, but no one says they have to leave immediately. And that, of course, ignores that the species already exist back home. We're not even talking about 'and the entire species picks up and leaves': we're talking 'and the soldiers finally arrive home.' And most species didn't even give the Alliance everything they had.


Really, here's all that's required to justify a species's military getting back home: the ability to re-establish fuel processing in the vicinity of Sol, and a basis for being able to provide food. Food not already carried in can be grown on ships, or found from nearby colony worlds. Fuel processing can be jusfied by the Crucible fleet using its engineering resources to re-tap Sol's planets. The Quarians definitely have the ability to feed Dextros, while both Earth (from food stores and gradual re-development) and the established local garden worlds can feed the regulars.


Once that inital preparation is established, it's just 'the big journey.' It becomes the responsibility to prove it can't happen to reject it as a literary device.


I love how you had to make many, many assumptions for this whole theory to work.



That colonies exist? That's known. That FTL exists? That's known. That the Crucible has engineering assets? That's known. That ships can grow food? That's known.

What really needs to be established is why these knowns can't work.