169 réponses à ce sujet

[FellishBeast]

BioWare is just a "husk" of what it once was.

[Aesieru]

ReavousX wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

I don't watch videos that are just of a guy talking, I need scenes and images and things so I don't develop an opinion of a person's social cues and issues and voice.

Why is developing an opinion on the person an issue?

Just watch the video, act like it's someone just talking to you, and enjoy it.

Developing any opinion on a person I haven't met without significant provocation or reasoning to do so is always a bad thing waiting to happen.

Also, I have no trust in statements of a person I haven't met or developed provocation or reasoning to do so.

Also, I don't like the way he looks.

Sounds like you live in a very dull box inside the internet. 

Not really, I find very entertaining videos of people's thoughts, and stuff.

For instance, that top 10 reasons we hate ME3's ending video? That was good, same as the indoctrination theory video, and it didn't require me to look at a person randomly talking without anything to entertain me.

[DoctorEss]

humes spork wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

Do watch please, then share your opinion.

He pushes dark energy, strike 1.
He says the ending isn't foreshadowed and has nothing thematically to do with predecessor games, strike 2.
Then he starts talking about how he would have ended the trilogy, strike 3.

First three minutes of the first video. He's outta here.

Dark energy was foreshadowed.  Space magic was not.  Strike 1, AND strike 2 for you.

Hell, for strikes 3~infinity, nothing about magic stargod space child was EVER foreshadowed.  At all.  Complete absurdity.  Entire series always been about hope, success against impossible odds.

What we actually got was an ending where SHEPARD IS THE VILLAIN.

The galaxy would be better off if Shepard had stayed dead in the beginning of Mass Effect 2.  Sure, the Reapers would have wiped everything out, but at least the next civilizations to rise up would have the use of the relays, and enjoy a golden age of technology and civilization for 50,000 years.

Instead, we have an indefinite galactic dark age, where most of the current civilizations are completely boned anyway, and any future species that rise up will likely never know they're not alone in the universe, never be able to move much past their own solar systems, and everything is meaningless.  Hopeless.  No future.  Nothing.

Good job, Shep.  Good job.

That's why this is a failure for Bioware.  That's why Mass Effect 3 is a total turd, and why it is a lazy, badly written, rushed, crap effort.  It not only manages to ruin itself, but every game in the series, and if they try to go the prequel route?  Why bother?  We know how it ends, and everything you would do IN a prequel will be rendered meaningless anyway.

Modifié par DoctorEss, 25 mars 2012 - 03:46 .

[ReavousX]

Aesieru wrote...

ReavousX wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

I don't watch videos that are just of a guy talking, I need scenes and images and things so I don't develop an opinion of a person's social cues and issues and voice.

Why is developing an opinion on the person an issue?

Just watch the video, act like it's someone just talking to you, and enjoy it.

Developing any opinion on a person I haven't met without significant provocation or reasoning to do so is always a bad thing waiting to happen.

Also, I have no trust in statements of a person I haven't met or developed provocation or reasoning to do so.

Also, I don't like the way he looks.

Sounds like you live in a very dull box inside the internet. 

Not really, I find very entertaining videos of people's thoughts, and stuff.

For instance, that top 10 reasons we hate ME3's ending video? That was good, same as the indoctrination theory video, and it didn't require me to look at a person randomly talking without anything to entertain me.

I know it's not everyone's "thing" but you're really shutting the door on some great media.  Podcasts, rants, all the like.  And this particular case isn't "random talking".  There's a point, topic, etc.  That's the entertaining part.

I get where you're coming from though.  Not saying you can't have an opinion, or your own taste.  It's just wild to me because I'm a huge fan of spoken word as entertainment. 

[Gibb_Shepard]

humes spork wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

Do watch please, then share your opinion.

He pushes dark energy, strike 1.
He says the ending isn't foreshadowed and has nothing thematically to do with predecessor games, strike 2.
Then he starts talking about how he would have ended the trilogy, strike 3.

First three minutes of the first video. He's outta here.

The ending isn't foreshadowed and has nothing to do with the predecessors thematically. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge by now.

[Tovanus]

Normally I don't ever listen to youtube commentaries. With this though, I did skip to the last ten minutes, and I have to admit it was good to listen to. Good voice for the commentator, reminds me a bit of a radio voice.

[humes spork]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I never said it wasn't a big deal. I said it was a sub-plot that was resolved long before the kid even arrives on the scene, which is true. 

[...]

And the Normandy's crew allow and actually encourage her to change. They like EDI, they want her to progress, they don't feel any sort of ownership over her. It disproves the notion that organics will always try to control or destroy sythetics, just like the Geth and Quarian's conflict does.

Even so, EDI's story isn't about organics versus synthetics, it's about EDI becoming more human, transcending something as mundane as her programming to become truly sapient. It poses the notions around whether machines will ever become self aware, or like humans, with emotions. In a way, it does refer to the Catalyst's assertions, except it disproves them as illogical. 

Plot is not the same as theme. Parenthood is also a strong theme in Mass Effect, yet it is only a plot hook or device a handful of times in the entire trilogy.

And, I'll direct your attention to a statement you just made that underlines the entire point I'm trying to make.

...it's about EDI becoming more human, transcending something as mundane as her programming to become something truly sapient...

EDI was already a sapient being well before she "became more human". The very point here is synthetics are not analogous to organics in psychology, reasoning, or ethics. Recall Legion's loyalty mission when he states that morality as organics understand it is simply irrelevant when it comes to synthetics. EDI "becomes more human" because she alters her own programming, and therefore her viewpoint and reasoning, to reflect organics' in direct contradiction to what she actually is in the name of coexistence. And that's why EDI ultimately concludes the Reapers', and by extension the Catalyst's, logic is flawed -- because she adopts an organic perspective. It's still a valid conclusion from a synthetic perspective.

The complaints here are from an "organocentric" perspective. That's the point. It's immensely interesting to see complaints of this vein held simultaneously as complaints the Reapers are no longer cthuloid intelligences and inherently unknowable. This is still true in a way, because they're synthetics and their psychology, reasoning, and ethics are entirely alien to the organic mind.

"You" say the inherent problem here is that synthetics impose their will and morality on organics, which due to their position of power results in the cycle. Has it occurred to you that you also attempt to impose your will and morality on synthetics? Because that's exactly what Legion and EDI both call Shepard out on in ME2 and 3, respectively.

Modifié par humes spork, 25 mars 2012 - 04:00 .

[humes spork]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

The ending isn't foreshadowed and has nothing to do with the predecessors thematically. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge by now.

Okay, thought experiment here.

If, instead of starbrat it had been a holographic representation of Harbinger that spoke to Shepard and the only other thing that had changed was dialog to reflect Harbinger's character, would you still hold that opinion of the ending's thematic elements?

[Grasich]

humes spork wrote...


Okay, thought experiment here.

If, instead of starbrat it had been a holographic representation of Harbinger that spoke to Shepard and the only other thing that had changed was dialog to reflect Harbinger's character, would you still hold that opinion of the ending's thematic elements?

Ending A, B, C with the horrendous choices WAS never foreshadowed. I would say that is a simple fact.

It IS foreshadowed that something will go wrong with the Crucible, but never the weird choices we get. Hell, synthesis and control are the two paths that Saren and the Illusive man went down. Would have thought up till the end "Hey, I bet the end will let me just make peace and be friends with the Reapers by giving in to their plans?" Because that's basically what that ending is.

[MrDbow]

Is it possible to understand, and even agree, with a couple of points he makes, but absolutely find it hard to sit and listen to him?

Edit: ... actually agreed less the more I force myself to watch.

Modifié par SimplyNeo, 25 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[humes spork]

Grasich wrote...

Ending A, B, C with the horrendous choices WAS never foreshadowed. I would say that is a simple fact.

That's just plain ****ty, lazy, apathetic writing and I won't make an effort to defend that. The point I'm trying to make is that despite the indefinsibly ****ty writing, it is in fact thematically appropriate (and keep in mind, theme =/= plot) despite popular perception. It's just due to that selfsame ****ty writing that people aren't making the mental connection.

Like I've been trying to get across, the critical context for the ending to "click" is scattered throughout blink-and-you-miss-it optional dialog smattered through the entire trilogy most players won't pay attention to and won't give second thought even if they do. And in what I can only deem to be an act of narrative incompetence unprecedented in science fiction, it's not referenced when it has to be -- especially considering that critical expository linkage was there until Walters and Hudson cut it because it wasn't "need to know" (source: Final Hours app).

Modifié par humes spork, 25 mars 2012 - 04:07 .

[Dominator24]

Thank for the video it was entertaining.

[Mushufasa1512]

Hmm interesting video. I like his ideas about retroactive choice but unfortunately it seems the more graphics heavy a game becomes, the less of a that type of thing is implemented.

[Grasich]

humes spork wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Ending A, B, C with the horrendous choices WAS never foreshadowed. I would say that is a simple fact.

That's just plain ****ty, lazy, apathetic writing and I won't make an effort to defend that. The point I'm trying to make is that despite the indefinsibly ****ty writing, it is in fact thematically appropriate despite popular perception. It's just due to that selfsame ****ty writing that people aren't making the mental connection.

I would disagree. Depending on how you played the game, different themes will stick out.

I always saw the main theme of ME being that by have a unified front of diverse individuals, you could pull through even the most impossible of circumstances and be better for it in the end. The ending of ME3 goes TOTALLY against that, and basically says that no matter what you've done, you're still screwed. No matter how hard you work, no matter who you are or how much you care, you. are. screwed.

Yes, sacrifices are made throughout ME1 and ME2, however the ending is ALWAYS a good outcome if you play your cards right. In ME3 the sacrifices are there, but the triumphant outcome is not.

[Jere85]

Really like listening to this guy, he must be some sort of reporter type deal person, 40 mins went by smoothly.

[ReavousX]

Grasich wrote...

humes spork wrote...


Okay, thought experiment here.

If, instead of starbrat it had been a holographic representation of Harbinger that spoke to Shepard and the only other thing that had changed was dialog to reflect Harbinger's character, would you still hold that opinion of the ending's thematic elements?

Ending A, B, C with the horrendous choices WAS never foreshadowed. I would say that is a simple fact.

It IS foreshadowed that something will go wrong with the Crucible, but never the weird choices we get. Hell, synthesis and control are the two paths that Saren and the Illusive man went down. Would have thought up till the end "Hey, I bet the end will let me just make peace and be friends with the Reapers by giving in to their plans?" Because that's basically what that ending is.

To say that Control or Synthesis was foreshadowed is simply wrong, so I'm in agreement here.

IF they wanted ot foreshadow these endings, there would have been someone who posed the question "What if The Ilusive Man is right?" for control, and there would have been the use of "Saren talk" to foreshadow Synthesis.  Not that these are the only two ways, but they're certainly the easiest ways to do so.  

The fact that they had to have Shepard say "So the Ilusive Man was right..." after given the choices is a dead giveaway that there was no foreshadowing.  They have to damn near break immersion to let you know that it's okay to pick Control.

[humes spork]

Grasich wrote...

I always saw the main theme of ME being that by have a unified front of diverse individuals, you could pull through even the most impossible of circumstances and be better for it in the end. The ending of ME3 goes TOTALLY against that, and basically says that no matter what you've done, you're still screwed. No matter how hard you work, no matter who you are or how much you care, you. are. screwed.

This is something I can agree with. But, centralizing that theme yields as a logical consequence what should have been an entirely different narrative structure, that was off the rails the instant they added the Crucible plot arc rather than focus the game around building a military force to defeat the Reapers conventionally (which I think would have made for a far stronger, more poignant, and interesting game altogether).

[UFGSpot]

SimplyNeo wrote...

Is it possible to understand, and even agree, with a couple of points he makes, but absolutely find it hard to sit and listen to him?

Edit: ... actually agreed less the more I force myself to watch.

this. he's ridiculously long winded

[Aesieru]

ReavousX wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

ReavousX wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

I don't watch videos that are just of a guy talking, I need scenes and images and things so I don't develop an opinion of a person's social cues and issues and voice.

Why is developing an opinion on the person an issue?

Just watch the video, act like it's someone just talking to you, and enjoy it.

Developing any opinion on a person I haven't met without significant provocation or reasoning to do so is always a bad thing waiting to happen.

Also, I have no trust in statements of a person I haven't met or developed provocation or reasoning to do so.

Also, I don't like the way he looks.

Sounds like you live in a very dull box inside the internet. 

Not really, I find very entertaining videos of people's thoughts, and stuff.

For instance, that top 10 reasons we hate ME3's ending video? That was good, same as the indoctrination theory video, and it didn't require me to look at a person randomly talking without anything to entertain me.

I know it's not everyone's "thing" but you're really shutting the door on some great media.  Podcasts, rants, all the like.  And this particular case isn't "random talking".  There's a point, topic, etc.  That's the entertaining part.

I get where you're coming from though.  Not saying you can't have an opinion, or your own taste.  It's just wild to me because I'm a huge fan of spoken word as entertainment. 

I did enough webcasts and streams of sermons and what not, need no more than that.

[FemmeShep]

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.

Yeah or not. This guy's commentary is better than anything you've said on here.

[Fuzzfro]

Watched it all and really enjoyed it.

[Grasich]

humes spork wrote...

Grasich wrote...

I always saw the main theme of ME being that by have a unified front of diverse individuals, you could pull through even the most impossible of circumstances and be better for it in the end. The ending of ME3 goes TOTALLY against that, and basically says that no matter what you've done, you're still screwed. No matter how hard you work, no matter who you are or how much you care, you. are. screwed.

This is something I can agree with. But, centralizing that theme yields as a logical consequence what should have been an entirely different narrative structure, that was off the rails the instant they added the Crucible plot arc rather than focus the game around building a military force to defeat the Reapers conventionally (which I think would have made for a far stronger, more poignant, and interesting game altogether).

This, I agree with. Personally I wanted to have a win by "conventional" means (still, a unified galaxy is hardly conventional), but with very very heavy losses. The galaxy SHOULD have been left in a real mess at the end, however it should have been a mess that can be rebuilt.

If the game had ended with massive casualties across the galaxy, but with the HOPE looking forward that things would get better and they would be able to rebuild, I would have been very satisfied with that. (Assuming it's possible for Shep and your LI to live in peace afterwards. I'm a bit of a sap for endings like that )