169 réponses à ce sujet

[Jack_Forest]

You know, I think "people who care" argument he has is actually quite valid - I actually bought Kingdoms of Amalur because I could feel  that the people who made it cared about the game. It's not the same feeling with ME3... 
Of course, I could still be suffering from ME3 ending and see things that isn't there.

[Computer_God91]

OP is trying to sound like a fan of the guy but with all this promotion I'd bet that the OP is the person in this video.

[spirosz]

Computer_God91 wrote...

OP is trying to sound like a fan of the guy but with all this promotion I'd bet that the OP is the person in this video.

Or I don't know, it's a video that a lot of us can relate to? 

[metawanderer]

Even if I don't agree with everything he says, I really like his video. It is rare for someone who articulates their opinions without degrading another's opinions as is often case in most message boards and youtube videos. I wish more people would express their opinions in this matter.

[gammle]

yea great points he made in the video...i liked to watch the whole vid..i feel like him that BW lost the costumer in me towards them..

[ReavousX]

Computer_God91 wrote...

OP is trying to sound like a fan of the guy but with all this promotion I'd bet that the OP is the person in this video.

There have been a lot of different people posting his stuff, all with nice things to say.  He's an articulate guy with a popular opinion.  I'd bet if he was the one bringing the video here, he'd just be upfront and tell people it's him.

[humes spork]

NReed106 wrote...

Anyone who judges a person on a first impression and assumes he knows all his viewpoints from that point on is being foolish as well

So, you're saying that calling someone out for,

- Grousing about one ending being poorly exposited (and to be fair it is), not thematically appropriate (when it is), not sufficiently foreshadowed (when it has been from the beginning of the very first game), (intentionally) self-defeating, and derived from (intentionally) circular logic;

- then arguing in favor of another potential ending that isn't thematically appropriate, not foreshadowed (being derived from three sidelong mentions that reference other, specific things that have nothing to do with the advocated ending), is self-defeating to the point of invalidating the entire premise of the game universe, and in every conceivable way circular;

- is foolish in and of itself?

[Draconis6666]

humes spork wrote...

He says the ending isn't foreshadowed and has nothing thematically to do with predecessor games, strike 2.

Because it isnt foreshadowed, its impossible for this ending to be foreshadowed by the predecessor games because this wasnt the ending that existed when those games were made its a new one created between ME 2 and ME 3. There i no foreshadowing of this ending beyond the Geth Quarian war and a line of dialogue on Thessia. There is in fact multitudes of foreshadowing things directly contrary to this ending, like foreshadowing that the reapers have some monolythic goal that is beyond comprehension when their goal is very simple and full of logical holes that would make an eight grade debate student cringe.

It has something to do with a very specific sub theme of the predecessor games, it does not have anythign to do wiht a multitude of other themes that the series has explored and in fact goes so far as to say that those themes aren't relevant at all and dont matter, the only theme that ever mattered was the stuff about the geth and the quarians and some of the stuff about edi. All that races can cooperate stuff, doesnt matter, all that fighting against the impossible and ovecoming it, doesnt matter, it throws away every theme but one to give you a terrible ending even to that theme that gives you a railroaded choice to end the theme that conforms to a single narrow minded view of the theme.

[Seel]

Pretty enjoyable video, thanks for sharing.

[Carmen_Willow]

I agreed with much of what he said. In my response to Bioware's request for feedback, I said that I didn't need an explanation for the Reapers, I just needed a way to defeat them.

I think that the Bioware team hit either a funding block a time block or just creator's fatigue. Any of you who have written fanfics or produced other creative works knows that creation fatigue is a real issue.

It would be nice if everyone could articulate their views on this issue so well and without rancor and name-calling. Kudos to archengeia for doing such a fine review. [edited for spelling]

Modifié par Carmen_Willow, 25 mars 2012 - 03:06 .

[lasertank]

Good video. Let's face the truth, people. Bioware is lazy.

[Reptilian Rob]

lasertank wrote...

Good video. Let's face the truth, people. Bioware is lazy.

They are a lost company, with people who have lost passion. 

[Meduna Macross]

Well I watched the entire video and I mean, like he said, and number of things 'could' have happened, whether time/budget constraints, miscommunication, misunderstanding about what the fans actually wanted... but I can really see what he means about the designers showing a lack of care and compassion. I'm certain that even if this was true there was still people at Bioware who wanted to make a good game rather than focusing on the dollar signs... but they seem to be in a minority. Everything from the Day One DLC, the 'BUY MOAR DLC PLZ' popup at the end of the game, to the way multiplayer practically begs you to buy booster packs for a chance and getting better gear (rather than unlocking stuff by level the way other Multiplayer Shooter games usually work) makes me feel like they're trying to milk me for every cent I'm worth, which I'll be honest... if Mass Effect 3 had been more appealing I doubt I would mind. But with the ending the way it is now, the idea of buying more DLC that takes place prior to is ridiculous. Why would I want even more choices to go ignored at the end of the game? Bleh, this is turning into a rant so I'll go ahead and stop here ;

[Sunnyhat1]

humes spork wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

Anyone who judges a person on a first impression and assumes he knows all his viewpoints from that point on is being foolish as well

So, you're saying that calling someone out for,

- Grousing about one ending being poorly exposited (and to be fair it is), not thematically appropriate (when it is), not sufficiently foreshadowed (when it has been from the beginning of the very first game), (intentionally) self-defeating, and derived from (intentionally) circular logic;

- then arguing in favor of another potential ending that isn't thematically appropriate, not foreshadowed (being derived from three sidelong mentions that reference other, specific things that have nothing to do with the advocated ending), is self-defeating to the point of invalidating the entire premise of the game universe, and in every conceivable way circular;

- is foolish in and of itself?

Where do you people get this from-the-first-game impression?

You can articulate your posts as well as you like but simple fact is the writer of ME1 and 2 left BW and his replacement for ME3 changed the original plot.

End of story...

[Warrior Craess]

humes spork wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

I'd invite you to watch the whole video. Or you're like this ME3 reviewers who didn't play the whole game, and still thinks it's magnificient?

Not worth my time.

Anyone who takes the dark energy thing seriously is demonstrating prima facie they haven't done the background reading in the codices they need to be remotely credible on the subject.

Anyone who thinks the conflict between synthetics and organics isn't a sufficient, ongoing theme in the game to base an ending around, just wasn't intellectually there while playing the games. At all. To the point I must wonder if they were even playing Mass Effect at all.

...and anyone who tries to talk about what would be a "better" ending in the context of that glaring ignorance of the universe and its ongoing themes is just a bloody fool, regardless of how well-spoken they are.

Wait Your saying that the general tone of the ME universe was about  organic vs synthetic?   Weird I didn't get that vibe at all.  I felt it was to avoid extinction, with Synthetics/artificials playing the part of henchmen.  The Geth imo were never the enemy, they were just dupes of Saren.  Then in ME 2 it was genetically altered and reaper subservient organics that we're the threat.  

If you do not have Javik, and the from ashes DLC, then the whole concept that the created "Always" rebel against their creators isn't broached at all. Anyone paying attention know that the Quarrians attacked the geth first, with out preveaction. So kindly point out this whole Organic VS synthetic direction that was inherent in the whole series. 

For every instance of Mechanie vs organics, there were multiple organic vs organic conflicts.  In many cases Cerberus was actually worse than the geth even in the first game.  Not to mention the instances of "evil" actions by the Corporations ( umm exo geni and that annoying plant,  The corp greed eveident in Noveria... etc...).

Really sugest that you replay the first game, your missing something from it. 

[humes spork]

Paulomedi wrote...

I do agree with you. The whole conflicted started with Geth/Sovereign/Saren vs. us the Organics. and this conclusion would fit perfectly for me.

His first video gives insight on alternative stories and endings, and why, although he prefers Dark Energy theme, he would go with any theme which was consistet, and gave the player choices for wildly different endings, without of course changing the plot.

In the third video he expresses his opinion why this happened, and of course, it's his opinion.

But it's one of the best that I saw.

I do agree the game should have had much more latittude for variance in the ending, but only so long as it stayed true to the trilogy's central theme. Basing ending variation around multiple different ongoing themes (which I must say dark energy is not credibly among) is an interesting concept in theory, but I have the sneaking suspicion in practice it would fall extremely short of expectation due to the enormity of the task.

My issue with the dark energy thing is it's a left field goofball thing that's self defeating and circular to the point of undermining the games' and universe's very premise. It's just bad science fiction. It could have came from the desk of Arthur C. Clarke himself and it still would be a steaming turd of a potential plotline. It's the kind of thing that I actually read and think critically about, and can't help but think if this is the best Karpyshyn came up with it's no wonder he was pulled from writing for Mass Effect.

Seriously, the real world equivalent of the dark energy plot would be giving a cargo cult a functioning, armed thermonuclear warhead, then intentionally waiting until they've accidentally detonated it to warn them of the dangers of nuclear weapons. It's that mind-bogglingly bad.

[The Night Mammoth]

Anyone who thinks the conflict between synthetics and organics isn't a sufficient, ongoing theme in the game to base an ending around, just wasn't intellectually there while playing the games. At all. To the point I must wonder if they were even playing Mass Effect at all.

Hi-fething-larious. I actually laughed out loud. 

It's not a sufficient theme to base the ending round. The theme was raised by Tali and the Quarians, explained and exemplified by Legion, and resolved a good 6 or so hours before you even meet the kid. It was a sub-plot, nothing more. 

The actual theme is you, as Shepard, an ordinary human, being the exemplar of hope and unity, fighting the Reapers, the indomitable avatars of fate and inevetbility. And winning, thus proving that our differences do not make us weaker, and that hope will always exist. 

A shame then, that this is discarded in favor meaningless nihilism.

The qasi-technological singularity the Catalyst refers to isn't foreshadowed at all.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 25 mars 2012 - 02:50 .

[Sunnyhat1]

*oh forget it i'm going to sleep*

Modifié par Sunnyhat1, 25 mars 2012 - 02:50 .

[humes spork]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Where do you people get this from-the-first-game impression?

Warrior Craess wrote...

Wait Your saying that the general tone of the ME universe was about  organic vs synthetic?   [...] Really sugest that you replay the first game, your missing something from it. 

You guys remember this? One of the very first assignments you can possibly do in ME1.

 

"Can't we resolve this peacefully?"
"How can you say that to this thing? You know it will turn on us!"
"I am not naive, human. All organics must destroy or control synthetic lifeforms. I wished to escape, but if I must die I will ensure that you are destroyed as well."

[The Night Mammoth]

Oh wow, because that isn't proved wrong completely on at least two occasions.

Legion and EDI would like a word.

[GeoFukari]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Is this another smugboy? No thanks

This one would inquire if Smugboy is still around. Before I returned to these forums, this one had great dislike for that individual.