@Dragoonlordz
From the bulleted points I understand that you liked an aspect of the ending, the emotional stimuli that it provided for you. Fair enough, but in such a case you shouldn’t write that you liked everything about the game.
Rather you should write,
“I liked the following aspect of the ending, disregarding everything else” because that
is exactly what you and the OP did, you for emotional reasons, the OP for a religious one.
Following these points you argue that the most important aspect of a game is the emotional stimuli that it provides to the player and since in ME3’s case it was intense, then you chose to disregard everything else and argue that the ending is good. Consistency and plot holes, therefore, are second to meaningless if the result makes you emotionally intense.
Also, again you argue that the most important aspect of the game to the exclusion even of having meaningful and consistent choices and results, is the emotional stimuli that any and all choices provide, regardless of the outcome or lack thereof.
You also argue that the majority of what you wanted cleared up, was done so. Care to elaborate a little further on that?
I agree that a game is a framework for telling stories, but there are many more aspects to a story than the emotional response of the reader/player. Consistency, arguably, is vastly more important than making your reader/player cry out of sadness or happiness. If you can manage both according to the context of the created world, then you have done a good job. Whether you agree or not with me on this is irrelevant since I am not the one who created these guidelines on writing novels, but were slowly introduced to the novelists by the people who started writing stories.
From your analyses I can ascertain that you fail to see the obvious reasoning behind plot holes that have nothing to do with Hypertech or advanced science. Nobody wanted to take apart a relay and find out how it works. And not
everything should be explained, but what about those things that can be explained logically and are outright bad or totally inconsistent? Why is Joker leaving the battle? How come the crew is aboard the Normandy? Javik, for one,
clearly stated in game that he wants to go to the graves of his friends and die there, in peace. Why did he change his mind and how was this done? Apart from the Red ending, which destroys most of the technology, why the Green and Blue explosions destroy the Normandy since they leave everything else intact?
Regarding the plot holes, yes, you can use imagination and interpretation to work your way through a plot hole, but the bottom line is that all conclusions must be logical and consistent. This is not a matter of blind faith in something that can’t be proven, it is hard science and outright human behavior that dictates what is plausible or not on many occasions. If a writer builds a character for 2 books in a certain way and then on his 3rd and final book he decides to show him as something entirely opposite without providing any clue as to how this happened, then it is just very, very bad writing. Refer to George Lucas and his decisions on Anakin Skywalker in Episode III for this.
In the world of game developers, having constructive feedback means that the majority of the players agree on 99% of the choices and just wants a few minor changes. In this occasion, only by doing something as radical such as this movement would BioWare feel exactly how bad they screwed up with the ending. This was the only way that EA, as the money behind BioWare, would understand that pushing things to a deadline just provides for “patched” and outright bad solutions which in turn will hurt both companies, equally.
To clarify on some notes, the movement just wants 3 things:
1. Less plot holes
2. Multiple endings based on previous actions presented in a meaningful way
3. Closure on the characters that participated in this ordeal, whether it is good or bad according to their personality and context.
You haven’t read all the posts and articles on this matter, probably. Not surprising, due to the sheer amount of posts. But don’t judge more than 50,000 people based on a couple of posts.
One of the biggest parts of the game development process is the Beta testing, organised by the QA department of each company, so they can get feedback from actual players on the various aspects of the game and change things accordingly. By definition, the Beta testers are the focus group of the game, the target audience if you will therefore their opinion is what will ultimately shape the game. Also, keep in mind that RPG’s are the cornerstone of storytelling. With that in mind, the first rule that each storyteller should strive for, is consistency and that is exactly what BioWare didn’t do.
To summarize:
From your post I gathered that you liked an aspect of the ending namely the emotional state that you went in based on the visual stimulus provided. To the exclusion of everything else, you decided that this is the cornerstone of a good ending and by doing this, BioWare did a good job.
In that case, I can accept your position but I will say that it is biased and disregards many more serious issues, in favour of a subjective preference. If, as you profess, liked the entire ending, then you should have provided answers to the various questions that can be answered without resorting to wild imagination, space magic or godlike beings.
@Catriana
I am not the one who invented the rules on discussion and dialogue and how they should be approached effectively. Since I started my studies in the University, I found out that you just can’t pull opinions out of your pockets and expect others to accept them based on face value. You have to provide logical arguments about it that make sense. These set parameters, as you stated, have been there for more than 2000 years. If you have found something new that can overrule and abolish them in favour of something better and more efficient, I am happy to hear it.
Modifié par TekMage, 31 mars 2012 - 04:37 .
Retour en haut
