124 réponses à ce sujet

[Siegdrifa]

Avolie wrote...

I had fun playing the trilogy - that is point enough
Does any videogame make any sense other than that?

Yes.
Because it is a video games doesn't mean it deserve un underated story writting that doesn't need to make sens.
Video game is a media, and it can carry sens as any other media involving a writting.

But it doesn't mean you have to enjoy the story to enjoy the game.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 26 mars 2012 - 01:16 .

[Kalas82]

Dollars


Any other ambition got lost along the track...the feeling gets stronger the more you progress from ME2 to 3.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Getorex wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

What was the point of the Mass Effect franchise?

To make money and keep gainful employment. What other reasons would there be?

The fact they got to express their creativity through an enduring narrative that spanned 3 games with various characters, themes and plot points was a perk that made their jobs fun, it was by no means a requirement or an endgoal.

A fair number of people want to be "artists".  Most aren't and cannot be.  They can splash around in the baby pool end of the art park (like software developers) but they are NOT artists.  They are codemonkeys hacking C, C++, etc.  A coder is NOT an artist.  They can try and DALLY with art but that doesn't make them artists. 

Business suits (Hudson) are not artists either.  They are suits.  Their skillset involves excel files, powerpoint, meetings, and cooking books.  They are no artists.  They, like codemonkeys, can DALLY but that's it.

Who cares about "ART" and what does that have to do with anything I said?

I am really sick of this "ART" argument as if it's relevant. Regardless of whether you sympathise with Videogames as Art or the Videogames not Art side of the debate.

This whole debate about "ART" only demonstrates one thing - BioWare's PR is still pretty damn effective on the BSN.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 26 mars 2012 - 01:22 .

[fchopin]

RVallant wrote...

Why? And prove it.

I can give you one solid reason why Geth and EDI can't survive it based on differences between them and Shepard. Shepard is part organic.


On another note; those comparing synthesis with Saren's goals = missing the difference between how the two goals would have worked.

I can not prove it as we are not shown what happens to the Geth and i think EDI survives in my game but not sure.
 
We will have to wait for a better explanation from Bioware next week.

[Siegdrifa]

fchopin wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

fchopin wrote...



You get to enjoy the adventures playing as Shepard in a trilogy of games and also the chance to kill the reapers who have been destroying whole civilizations for millions of years.
What more can you ask for.

May be i get the wrong idea but, you make it sound like :
"why do you care ? you see explosion, hot aliens, cool guns, you will destroy big things... it doesn't matter why you destroy it or where it finish as long as it was fun".

You would be wrong as i am story person.
 
The ME story is not the usual have a happy ending story that everyone is asking for or my character will find a way to make everything perfect.
 
We are fighting an enemy which we should not have any chance of winning, this enemy has been harvesting whole civilisations for millions of years and we get a chance to stop them so in my opinion if we can destroy them we have accomplished the impossible.
 
Any ending with my teammates surviving and maybe my character surviving as well as Earth i would call a good ending.

To be honest, the scale of the ennemy isn't really important in my opinion.

Usualy (but not always), the threat scale and cover as far as you travel, and often result in "if you can travel to the all city you will have to save the city, if you can travel a country, you will save the country, if you can travel a continant, you will have to save the continant".
ME make us travel the galaxy, so yhea... we have to save the galaxy. It's just scaling the threat to justify traveling in each part to bring sens and objective of "why" you are traveling there in first place.

The reapers and not as frightning as any other "impossible odds"... in serval game or story or legend, the hero have to fight against gods, so it's not less impossible than reapers, i would say actualy fighting a god soun more impossible for human, as he could be by wishing only, the reapers actualy have to fight in order to kill.

It's may be because i was an insider that i see strings rather han "impossible odds", it's just look like writting tools to me, and this what the hero are here for, overcoming impossible odd is their daily life.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 26 mars 2012 - 01:26 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Siegdrifa wrote...

CrazyRah wrote...

What was the point of the trilogy? Damn good question, i thought i knew the answer 3-4 weeks ago. Now i got no idea >.<

Go back to ME1, first geth you see, get killed and let Saren do the synthesis ending, you just save 100h of gameplay for the same outcome.
I wish i could be sarcastic.

[Doctor Uburian]

CrustyBot wrote...

Getorex wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

What was the point of the Mass Effect franchise?

To make money and keep gainful employment. What other reasons would there be?

The fact they got to express their creativity through an enduring narrative that spanned 3 games with various characters, themes and plot points was a perk that made their jobs fun, it was by no means a requirement or an endgoal.

A fair number of people want to be "artists".  Most aren't and cannot be.  They can splash around in the baby pool end of the art park (like software developers) but they are NOT artists.  They are codemonkeys hacking C, C++, etc.  A coder is NOT an artist.  They can try and DALLY with art but that doesn't make them artists. 

Business suits (Hudson) are not artists either.  They are suits.  Their skillset involves excel files, powerpoint, meetings, and cooking books.  They are no artists.  They, like codemonkeys, can DALLY but that's it.

Who cares about "ART" and what does that have to do with anything I said?

I am really sick of this "ART" argument as if it's relevant. Regardless of whether you use "ART" as a bludgeon for or against Mass Effect 3.

This whole debate about "ART" only demonstrates one thing - BioWare's PR is still pretty damn effective on the BSN.

It's curious how the ¨art¨ argument is used to defend Bioware, when it should be used to defend the customers.

I have been involved in the world of art since lots of years ago, and i can easely say that Mass Effect 3, especially because of the plotholes, is not art. Citizen Kane can be considered art, A Space Odyssey can be considered art, but no Mass effect 3.

Anyway, Bioware owns the rights of the saga, but they have not the right of making suffer a lot of persons, that's just insane, inhuman, and useless.

They should have acted with responsibility!

[78stonewobble]

I didn't really mind that shepard died it atleast one or 2 of the endings.

It's just that the endings were pretty much the "same" and so anti-climactic...

The should have showed more of how the world would differ and they should have done that via the squadmate's fates since "we" (?) became so attached to them.

[Siegdrifa]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

CrazyRah wrote...

What was the point of the trilogy? Damn good question, i thought i knew the answer 3-4 weeks ago. Now i got no idea >.<

Go back to ME1, first geth you see, get killed and let Saren do the synthesis ending, you just save 100h of gameplay for the same outcome.
I wish i could be sarcastic.

I wasn't really serious, but at best, we did a very little better than saren to accomplish the same thing (Saren die in the process may be he would have succeeded), but if we can't do better than the ambition of Saren, you know ... make it a little more win / win, it make me think i should have let him handle the work and me being in shore leave for a few year  : )))

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 26 mars 2012 - 01:37 .

[Optimus J]

In this post I'll not assume or say anything about the writing. I would LOVE to see an answer too.
What was the point of the trilogy? Priestly can ask Casey and Mac and post their answers here. We know it's under his power.

[Siegdrifa]

Optimus J wrote...

In this post I'll not assume or say anything about the writing. I would LOVE to see an answer too.
What was the point of the trilogy? Priestly can ask Casey and Mac and post their answers here. We know it's under his power.

I hope they wouldn't dare answer "because the journey was fun".
You don't waste your time tryng to write a story if your story have nothing to matter in the end.

[Reaperpoo]

I have loved the whole series and always loved picking up 1 and 2 every couple of months for another playthrough, I just feel a bit sad that I don't even feel like doing this with any of them now. Just been lurking on here reading threads and wondering what will happen in April.

Modifié par VenusInFlares, 26 mars 2012 - 01:48 .

[S H E P A R D]

To adapt yourselves in the advanced concept of rgb-color components.

Modifié par S H E P A R D, 26 mars 2012 - 02:30 .

[Herky]

Siegdrifa wrote...

It should, an ending is supposed to bring the last part of the puzzle that give credit to the whole picture.

I don't think every game and movie ever have to follow that same structure that you're used to, that moment you're talking about can happen earlier too

[Rickin10]

To become the legendary Minister of Galactic Mass Murder.

[BeefoTheBold]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

darkshadow136 wrote...

To test the level of success of the indoctrination of it's customer and fan base.

Ouch.  Right in the truth.

Agreed.

[PaddlePop]

CrazyRah wrote...

What was the point of the trilogy? Damn good question, i thought i knew the answer 3-4 weeks ago. Now i got no idea >.<

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

CrustyBot wrote...

[This whole debate about "ART" only demonstrates one thing - BioWare's PR is still pretty damn effective on the BSN.

Yes Crusty, but that's about the only place it's effective at this point. The majority of the regular posters at other gaming sites seem to be pretty fed up with the direction Bioware has moved in post EA buyout.

[BeefoTheBold]

It's Bioware's version of the famous Kobayashi Maru.

We're all being prepped to be James T. Kirk in the next Bioware MMO after they buy the rights to Star Trek.

[huntrrz]

The point?

"Never trust a corporation, under any circumstances.

We're sorry we had to take 5 years to make our point, and betray you all so brutally to do it.

But it was for your own good. Remember this next time." - Bioware

[AllThatJazz]

Yeah, count me in as one of the people who thought the trilogy was about 'hope through adversity' or 'triumph against all odds' or whatever. Sacrifice was there, but was kind of a marginal theme, given that throughout the first two games, only one person (Virmire) had to be sacrificed.

One thing that Shepard said repeatedly throughout the trilogy was that if we sacrifice the things that make us who and what we are, then we are no better than the things we are fighting. I happen to believe that this is true. And yet, the end choices force us to sacrifice who and what Shepard is. Two of the options mean sacrificing Shep's very humanity, while the third means retaining the humanity but at horrific cost to others (and thereby losing one's 'humanity' in a different sense).  So what 'message' am I supposed to infer from that? That people are no better than the Reapers? Great.

Edit: oops, sorry, didn't realise this was in the no spoilers forum  Changed them to be less specific, though they are still a bit spoilery ...

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 26 mars 2012 - 05:18 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think the ME trilogy is not one. When ME1 was released the entire story was not even written. Parts 2 and 3 were just planned and those other parts would only be written when ME1 didn't flop. We also know that the end of ME3 was changed. And that shows. To me the 3 titles feel more like 3 independent stories in a franchise than one consistent story divided in 3 parts.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 26 mars 2012 - 03:34 .

[Ael]

CondeDrako wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

CrazyRah wrote...

What was the point of the trilogy? Damn good question, i thought i knew the answer 3-4 weeks ago. Now i got no idea >.<

Go back to ME1, first geth you see, get killed and let Saren do the synthesis ending, you just save 100h of gameplay for the same outcome.
I wish i could be sarcastic.

Totally true

And you could have saved the galaxy a lot of pain and suffer letting Saren win

Best answers to date

[gosimmons]

Gonna go ahead and leave a quote from an Escapist article here.

"You can tell the story of 'Life sucks, nothing makes sense, and you'll never know what happened' in fifteen or twenty minutes. If you stretch that out over an hour and a half movie and spring that on them at the end, then you should expect some people to be angry. If you take that message and spread it out over three movies, then you're a sadist. And if you spread that message out over three 30+ hour videogames, then you are going to end up with what we have here, which is people so frustrated and angry they will try to file an FTC complaint because they hate your art so bad."

Modifié par gosimmons, 26 mars 2012 - 03:47 .