AlanC9 wrote...
I guess if I'm going to read the thread, I really should address the OP.....maddlarkin wrote...
Firstly the Mass Effect series has always been about choice and consequence, the extent of this is best seen between ME1 and ME2, if you create a new career in 2 instead of importing a Shepard from 1 who say, saved the council, the game world is almost unrecognisable.
And I'll start by saying that this is a huge overstatement; and worse, it's an obvious one. A new PC in ME2 gets a garden-variety Renegade starting point. Mostly this just means that the Council is dead and humans more-or-less run the new Council. I recreated one of my ME1 characters in ME2 when I lost her save. It didn't really matter.
ME1 to ME2 was for me very different, Council dead, Udina on the Council, increased tension in the air on the Citadel, different news items in the background, it was a much darker world and a stark contrast for me at least, to the one my mostly paragon character created on starting. That was my experince anyway.
Choice is the first failure of ME3’s ending, there should be a bad ending, where everyone dies, they cycle continues and a cut scene of an unknown alien race digging up one of Lira’s boxes and a happy one with ‘blue babies’ and Garrus at the bar (although not with the babies that would be irresponsible parenting.) and every possible contingency in-between this is what was promised by Casey Hudson ‘16 distinct endings’ and unique experience for every play through. This does not happen as whatever your actions you are brought back to the same fixed point. Some have said this was the point, to make the story circular, if that was the case the ending still fails to deliver on what was promised.
This is very confused. Being able to choose actions does not necessarily mean being able to choose outcomes. You can make an argument that an RPG needs to let a player chose a happy ending, but you need to actually make the argument rather than simply assuming it to be true.
I'm sorry you found my choice of language confusing, but surely in a game choice of action should lead to choice of outcome, cause and effect if all actions lead to the same outcome surely thats a flaw with the game desgin... I hate to use the Skyrim analogy as its been done to death, but choice has impact, I completed the game by wiping out the Stormcloaks and securing Imperial dominance. Bycontrast, my girlfreinds playthrough see's her approaching the Grey Beards to sue for peace, from the siding of the Storm Cloaks at the outset. I had no idea a negotiated peace was even an option till she told me. Choice of action leads to different outcomes, if they don't whats the point in choosing at all?
And while Casey's statement was very irresponsible, you're reading things into it that he never actually said. Also not that the "16 endings" thing seems to be a myth. People have been talking about it on the boards, but no0 one can produce an actual source for the figure.
You could be right about the 16 endings, I have seen links to the original quote in previous weeks, but I can't find any of them at the moment so, since I can't cooberate it, I'll instead I'll include a stament Casey Hudson did make in an interview link to source attached
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2
" because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere... That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C."
This statment clearly sets the expectations of the consumer, player, fan, gamer or patron (your choice of name) and would appear not to match what is presented at the end of the game
I'll be sure to amend the original post tomorrow once I've had some sleep
As for your list of other endings from things like BSG and Lost and what they did that ME3 didn't do, you left something out of the argument. Namely, the actual argument. Saying that you don't need to talk about what you're talking about is no way to make a case, son.
Admittedly I did not list every single plot hole or narrative flaw with the ME3 ending. This is a spoiler free forum so that would of been unfair. Also I assumed by this point that the problems percived by the fans were common knowledge, if this was my mistake apologies, here is a link which details them indepth,
*Link does inc. Spoilers don't read if you don't want to see them*
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true
The argument, although it was more of a summation of the problem to be honest is that ME3 fails to deliver on the expecations of a conclusion to a narrative, as I set out for the reasons above included in the linked video and the link above.
And if you're going to mention.....Art for commission ie to be sold has long made changes to key plot points in response to its audience, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally intended to end Sherlock Holmes adventures at the Reinbach Falls. But due to popular demand for a return of the great detective, Holmes was revealed to of survived eventually retiring to tend bees.
... then I'll have to play the hideous edited versions of Shakespeare from Restoration period. You know, the ones where Lear and Cordelia don't die. Or the awful rewritten ending to Meet John Doe.
I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that I said you had to do anything, the point I was making was simply that any change to the ending would not establish precedent as public demand has effected changes before in different media at that they are still recorgnised as art forms...
I'm not saying the Gatekeepers are automatically right, by any means. But the public damn well isn't automatically right either; especially not self-appointed groups of "fans."
I don't remember saying the public is automatically right either, just that to my mind the democratisation of interllectual arts is nothing to fear and a process that is steadily increasing, thanks in no small part to the communications technology we are using here. I attached a link to the article death of a critic which looks at this in far greater depth
After the bit about Gatekeepers, I got bored with the post, so I'll stop here.
So making a judgement without reading the full content, condesending uses of the word 'son' and very few facts to back up your postion... oddly this was the sort of thing I drew attention to in those final couple of paragarhs.
Modifié par maddlarkin, 04 avril 2012 - 05:40 .
Retour en haut
< serious face.
