3214 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Controller_B wrote...

It's pointless to complain about a DLC fix that isn't out yet. What's the demand now? We want changes to a DLC we haven't seen yet? That borders on absurdity. I don't think people should stop complaining about the current ending because it still exists and those complaints still need to shape the DLC. But whining about a press release that doesn't really even tell you anything isn't going to be taken seriously.

Largely how I feel. We literally know nothing about how this will expand on the endings, let's wait until we get some real details or even the DLC itself, please.

Except that we know they're extending and adding to the current endings, which are all putrid excrement. Instead of shoveling away the manure like they should, they're simply adding more manure, and that's more than enough to know that they aren't really even listening and are taking the easy way out. Adding more wrong to the wrong doesn't make it right. We're still going to get crappy blue option, crappy green option and crappy red option, but merely with "clarification" and so the endings are all still bad and still not going to reflect our past choices and decisions in the slightest (granted ME3 as a whole did an awful job of this, even without the endings).

[RADIUMEYEZ]

Can't wait to see what they do

[simo2003]

This makes me want to cry. No changes to the ending. I'm sorry, Bioware. Your artistic integrity isn't worth anything if those endings were the best you could come up with.

[LuckySe7enty]

A few months is a long time in gaming. Casuals who only played me3 (majority in my view of sales) will have moved on to the next big thing. It will only be us fans left here arguing all over again. Can't wait.

P.s. Does anyone know how well me2 arrival sold?

[PlasmaticJj]

i just hope this is for real, not just a thing for making people keep qiet, disapointing game in geniral compered to the first one, the constant camera angle with "ass to face" or clevarige rely bugs me, espashaly the way it reminds me of the "reply girls" tacktics...

[DistantUtopia]

Katsaurs wrote...

I'm not really sure how to feel about this at the moment.

On one hand I feel very cautiously optimistic that hopefully this will finally give some sense and some sort of satisfaction. And it's free.

Yet on the other, I feel that no matter what they extend- those endings/star kid will remain, and Shepard is still doomed to perish without being given that 4th option and not see her blue babies (if they're given in the epilogue) anyway.

I'll wait and see before I start to really build my hopes up; I don't want them crushed yet again.

This.  I remain pessimistically optimistic on the outcome of this DLC...

[FirstBlood XL]

DistantUtopia wrote...

This.  I remain pessimistically optimistic on the outcome of this DLC...

Haha --- good call.   That's about where I'm at.

[SkaldFish]

I was optimistic after the initial EA press release, because it left room for some positive possibilities. Unfortunately, the subsequent post / FAQ on the BioWare blog seems to have closed some of those doors. While it's possible -- even likely -- that the details of what will be done haven't been worked out yet, greater consistency across statements, and more explanation as to the intended scope, would go a long way towards curbing some of the more negative reactions to the announcement.

I'm particularly troubled by the mention -- again -- of the "artistic vision" defense. There's frankly no good reason to even say this in a FAQ directed at the ME3 community, as it just fans the fire by indicating that a central issue addressed by players either has not really been heard or will not be publicly acknowledged.

As I mentioned in a comment on one of the gaming sites, citing "artistic vision" is such a tired, strawman argument. If BioWare prefers a quarter pounder with cheese over a ribeye, it should just say so. Apparently some fans and media journalists feel the same way, so they wouldn't be alone. As long as the industry continues to churn out fast-food-quality content, though, and customers continue to accept it, we can be sure we'll never get anything better. But hey - maybe they think it is a ribeye. and if neither the vendor nor the consumer can tell the difference, what does it matter?

But many consumers did see the difference.

What I find particularly ironic about this situation is the fear-mongering rhetoric that's been circulated about "slippery slopes" and "least-common denominator art" and the dangers of this supposed attempt at "democratization of art" by "whining fans." Artistic vision is a great shield to hide behind, but, as it stands now, the ending of ME3 is at best pure kitsch. It's exactly what Thomas Kulka was referring to when he feared that kitsch would eventually overwhelm quality art in the public's perception, because the public is being pressured to accept it by those who have been conditioned to consider mediocrity acceptable.

Many loyal BioWare customers, having become accustomed to a higher level of storytelling expertise, objected to the sudden drop in quality -- from many perspectives -- of the last minutes of ME3. That they, and not the team that produced such substandard work, would be accused of trying to trample artistic integrity, has to be the cruelest irony of this whole debacle. That integrity had been betrayed long before it became the stalking-horse it is today.

Modifié par SkaldFish, 07 avril 2012 - 08:45 .

[Versidious]

SkaldFish wrote...

I was optimistic after the initial EA press release, because it left room for some positive possibilities. Unfortunately, the subsequent post / FAQ on the BioWare blog seems to have closed some of those doors. While it's possible -- even likely -- that the details of what will be done haven't been worked out yet, greater consistency across statements, and more explanation as to the intended scope, would go a long way towards curbing some of the more negative reactions to the announcement.

I'm particularly troubled by the mention -- again -- of the "artistic vision" defense. There's frankly no good reason to even say this in a FAQ directed at the ME3 community, as it just fans the fire by indicating that a central issue addressed by players either has not really been heard or will not be publicly acknowledged.

As I mentioned in a comment on one of the gaming sites, citing "artistic vision" is such a tired, strawman argument. If BioWare prefers a quarter pounder with cheese over a ribeye, it should just say so. Apparently some fans and media journalists feel the same way, so they wouldn't be alone. As long as the industry continues to churn out fast-food-quality content, though, and customers continue to accept it, we can be sure we'll never get anything better. But hey - maybe they think it is a ribeye. and if neither the vendor nor the consumer can tell the difference, what does it matter?

But many consumers did see the difference.

What I find particularly ironic about this situation is the fear-mongering rhetoric that's been circulated about "slippery slopes" and "least-common denominator art" and the dangers of this supposed attempt at "democratization of art" by "whining fans." Artistic vision is a great shield to hide behind, but, as it stands now, the ending of ME3 is at best pure kitsch. It's exactly what Thomas Kulka was referring to when he feared that kitsch would eventually overwhelm quality art in the public's perception, because the public is being pressured to accept it by those who have been conditioned to consider mediocrity acceptable.

Many loyal BioWare customers, having become accustomed to a higher level of storytelling expertise, objected to the sudden drop in quality -- from many perspectives -- of the last minutes of ME3. That they, and not the team that produced such substandard work, would be accused of trying to trample artistic integrity, has to be the cruelest irony of this whole debacle. That integrity had been betrayed long before it became the stalking-horse it is today.

Ssssshhhhh, you'll confuse the pro-enders who think the ending was profound and that it's art because it was bleak.

[Sable Phoenix]

SkaldFish wrote...

I was optimistic after the initial EA press release, because it left room for some positive possibilities. Unfortunately, the subsequent post / FAQ on the BioWare blog seems to have closed some of those doors. While it's possible -- even likely -- that the details of what will be done haven't been worked out yet, greater consistency across statements, and more explanation as to the intended scope, would go a long way towards curbing some of the more negative reactions to the announcement.

I'm particularly troubled by the mention -- again -- of the "artistic vision" defense. There's frankly no good reason to even say this in a FAQ directed at the ME3 community, as it just fans the fire by indicating that a central issue addressed by players either has not really been heard or will not be publicly acknowledged.

As I mentioned in a comment on one of the gaming sites, citing "artistic vision" is such a tired, strawman argument. If BioWare prefers a quarter pounder with cheese over a ribeye, it should just say so. Apparently some fans and media journalists feel the same way, so they wouldn't be alone. As long as the industry continues to churn out fast-food-quality content, though, and customers continue to accept it, we can be sure we'll never get anything better. But hey - maybe they think it is a ribeye. and if neither the vendor nor the consumer can tell the difference, what does it matter?

But many consumers did see the difference.

What I find particularly ironic about this situation is the fear-mongering rhetoric that's been circulated about "slippery slopes" and "least-common denominator art" and the dangers of this supposed attempt at "democratization of art" by "whining fans." Artistic vision is a great shield to hide behind, but, as it stands now, the ending of ME3 is at best pure kitsch. It's exactly what Thomas Kulka was referring to when he feared that kitsch would eventually overwhelm quality art in the public's perception, because the public is being pressured to accept it by those who have been conditioned to consider mediocrity acceptable.

Many loyal BioWare customers, having become accustomed to a higher level of storytelling expertise, objected to the sudden drop in quality -- from many perspectives -- of the last minutes of ME3. That they, and not the team that produced such substandard work, would be accused of trying to trample artistic integrity, has to be the cruelest irony of this whole debacle. That integrity had been betrayed long before it became the stalking-horse it is today.

Skald, this is a brilliant summation of the whole "artistic integrity" claim.

Frankly, every time I see them use that phrase, it looks like it's spelled "you're just stupid".  It's dismissive and condescending; it essentially tells people that the way they feel about a work is invalid because they're incapable of understanding it.  The type of critic who uses that claim to defend nihilistic or incomplete fiction, based solely on its nihilism or incompleteness, always sets my teeth on edge.  The type of artist who uses it to defend incomplete or incomprehensible work is even worse.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 07 avril 2012 - 09:48 .

[Lurchibald]

Listening to fans to make fun of them? classy...

https://twitter.com/...978725637992448

Chris Priestly ‏ @BioEvilChris Reply Retweet Favorite · Open

What do you mean "at the end he died on a cross"? That makes no sense! And what of his companions? *newtestamentrage* #retakeeaster

Modifié par Lurchibald, 08 avril 2012 - 02:40 .

[Splinter Cell 108]

So does anyone know when we're supposed to get details about this thing? Or is BioWare planning not to talk about it and let everyone wait until summer, because honestly I don't know what they're going to say about it and that worries me more.

[Lurchibald]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

So does anyone know when we're supposed to get details about this thing? Or is BioWare planning not to talk about it and let everyone wait until summer, because honestly I don't know what they're going to say about it and that worries me more.

As you can see from my last post they are still treating us like the proverbial gum on the bottom of their boot, so my guess is that they'll be saying nothing more.

[bboynexus]

They probably do not know the exact details themselves yet. Having to work out the massive issues with the ending is probably a daunting task, especially for the good writers like Pat Weekes.

[SilencedScream]

Lurchibald wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

So does anyone know when we're supposed to get details about this thing? Or is BioWare planning not to talk about it and let everyone wait until summer, because honestly I don't know what they're going to say about it and that worries me more.

As you can see from my last post they are still treating us like the proverbial gum on the bottom of their boot, so my guess is that they'll be saying nothing more.

They don't have to say anything more because I'm not paying for anything more.
I understand people want to joke and have that vibe of "close ties with consumers," but when thousands of people are asking for answers and telling you - mostly politely - why your game is ruined in the last ten minutes, that's not quite the appropriate time to joke about it. This crosses the line into what's likely the worst customer relations ever.

I'll be back when the extended cut hits and the fans rage again, just to see how the devs respond then. "But we thought we gave you what you wanted!"

[whitey4444]

Re: Chris Priestly twitter post

I think the bible does actually talk about what happened to some of them afterwards. Not the best example to use.

There is a lot of similarity between the bible and ME3 though. All four gospels in the bible have the same ending.

[Austin N]

OFFICIAL: EA announces Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut DLC (FREE!)

Yeah!? Yeah!? Well I don't care! Because making an Extended Cut DLC doesn't pay the bills!

Bumhug!

[Wickwrackscar]

whitey4444 wrote...

Re: Chris Priestly twitter post

I think the bible does actually talk about what happened to some of them afterwards. Not the best example to use.

There is a lot of similarity between the bible and ME3 though. All four gospels in the bible have the same ending.

And they didn't sell the new testament for 60 bucks with the promise that it'll be an entertaining interactive experience. Totally different premises. A bad comparison indeed.

Mr. Priestly is evil and stays evil. That is one reliable constant in the Bioware division of Electronic Arts.

[Sable Phoenix]

I'll just leave this here.  It's an excerpt, from this excellent blog post by a professional writer, that sums up my thoughts on "art" and its supposedly involate nature far better than I ever could.

But It’s Art!

There’s a recurring tune being played by Bioware in response to this outcry, and it goes something like this: “We might respond to these complaints, and we might flesh out the ending we presented, but we’re not going to change anything, because this is art — this is the product of artists — and as such it is inviolate and immutable in the face of outside forces.”

Which is, speaking as a working artist, complete and utter horse****. If you make a movie, and you put in front of focus groups, and they categorically hate the ending, you change it. If you’re writing a book and your first readers tell you the ending is terrible, you fix it. (Ditto your second readers, your second-draft readers, your agent, your editor, your copy editor.)

Or maybe you don’t — maybe you say “this is art, and it is inviolate and immutable in the face of outside forces”, which is certainly your choice — but don’t expect anyone to help you bring that piece of crap toprint. Anyone can tell a story. You can sit in your special writing nook and turn out page after page of perfectly unaltered, immutable art and be quite happy — you’re welcome to, in fact. But when you decide you want to make a living off it? Even if you want to just make a little spending money?

Then the rules change. Then it’s work. Then it’s a job. More importantly, then it’s part of a business model, and those golden days of your art being inviolate and immutable blah blah blah are well and truly behind you. Name me a story that saw print, or a movie that saw the Big Screen, and I’ll show you art that changed because of input from someone other than the the original creator — from someone looking at  it from the point of view of the consumer.

Bioware is a company. Making their stories into games is their business model. Hiding behind some kind of “but it’s art, so we’re not changing it” defense is insulting, disingenuous, and flat-out stupid. Worse, it perpetuates the idea that the creator’s output is in some stupid way sancrosant and, as art, cannot be “wrong” or “bad”. If
you as a creator imagine that to be the case — if you think that kind of argument is going to defend your right to never do a rewrite or a revision or line edits or to ever alter, in any way, your precious Artistic Process — discard that notion.

Or become accustomed to a long life as an “undiscovered talent”.

The rest of the article is well worth the read, too, as it uses the Lord of the Rings as a model to illustrate exactly where, and how badly, the ending of Mass Effect 3 fails.  Its followup article, describing why the players of the Mass Effect games are co-creators of the story, is nearly as good.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 09 avril 2012 - 08:27 .

[SkaldFish]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I'll just leave this here.  It's an excerpt, from this excellent blog post by a professional writer, that sums up my thoughts on "art" and its supposedly involate nature far better than I ever could.

<snip>...because of the wall of text I just added...</snip>

The rest of the article is well worth the read, too, as it uses the Lord of the Rings as a model to illustrate exactly where, and how badly, the ending of Mass Effect 3 fails.  Its followup article, describing why the players of the Mass Effect games are co-creators of the story, is nearly as good.

Hear, hear! Perfectly stated -- thanks for sharing.

I don't know how the ME team really receives this kind of frank discussion, or whether they've been exposed to much high-level criticism in their careers, but I also think it's important that BioWare employees, customers, and others chiming in from journalistic cheap seats, not look at this kind of criticism as "hate." Criticism is a harsh thing, but it often has to be harsh to be truly constructive. I believe some at BioWare are taking feedback very seriously and objectively, but the public facade we see is more often quite defensive and dismissive.

I've had professors (and customers) look at my paintings over the years and verbally (but thankfully, so far, not literally) throw up on them. I didn't like it at the time, but I didn't call them whiners, label them "entitled," and walk away with fragile ego supposedly protected. Now, granted, there have been ME fans in this case who have provided plenty of reason for legitimate objections, but to use that as an excuse to dismiss legitimate critical feedback is not going to help BioWare specifically, or the gaming world as a whole.

I happen to think very highly of BioWare and every person on the ME team. When I think of how ME started, what kind of determination it took to keep it going, and the massive amount of talent and creativity that brought it to us, I'm floored. I know -- as a practicing artist and a longtime software developer -- how many 80/90-hour weeks and sacrifices went into it, and I understand that this all feels like a surreal, "no good deed goes unpunished" reward for all that hard work. But I hope, really, really hope, that at least some there understand that we wouldn't have spent so many hours ourselves expressing our criticism if we didn't recognize that, appreciate the result, and want to make it better.

Do we have any right, really, to presume to critically evaluate the product? Yes, I think that's an essential part of the relationship between any product and its consumers, or any work of art and its "patrons." As I've said before, I think it was Madelaine L'Engle who first said that creativity and humility are inextricably linked. Art is not created for the artist. Creative hubris is the artist's worst enemy. Artists who engage with their audiences set up an environment that enables both parties to learn and grow. The audience becomes more sophisticated in its appreciation, and the artist learns to value the interaction as an essential part of the creative process.

So why this has become such an adversarial relationship is puzzling to me. Maybe, in a world that tries its hardest to trivialize everything, we've all begun to forget how to do more than insult, ignore, and dismiss each other to protect ourselves from that trivialization. It's been sad to see the sniping and snarking on all "sides" of this discussion.

I've had to admit to having missed the mark many times in my career. Say what you will about that (I know, it's like I just pulled out a giant troll horn and blew it to call them here...) it's made me a better artist, developer, and person. Programming is a creative endeavor too, by the way, and I've tossed both canvasses and code over the years. Lots and lots of canvasses and code.

If humbly tossing defective work and attacking the problem again weren't so common, "back to the drawing board" wouldn't be such a familiar saying. Standards of quality matter, and choosing to simply follow those who say "you poor thing -- it sure seems fine to me -- don't you dare let them attack your creative freedom" is just another few shuffling steps down the path toward Burgers and Fries For All.

The real choices aren't usually what we think they are.

Modifié par SkaldFish, 09 avril 2012 - 09:48 .

[Uriko128]

But It’s Art!

There’s a recurring tune being played by Bioware in response to this outcry, and it goes something like this: “We might respond to these complaints, and we might flesh out the ending we presented, but we’re not going to change anything, because this is art — this is the product of artists — and as such it is inviolate and immutable in the face of outside forces.”

 

That's what artists do. If they changed their ending just because there's a lot of people that don't like it, they would be cashmakers rather than artists. They would be more like EA, and less like Bioware.

 Which is, speaking as a working artist, complete and utter horse****. If you make a movie, and you put in front of focus groups, and they categorically hate the ending, you change it. If you’re writing a book and your first readers tell you the ending is terrible, you fix it. (Ditto your second readers, your second-draft readers, your agent, your editor, your copy editor.)

 

No you don't. You only do that if you have a particular interest in making money out of the masses. But usually artists are misunderstood, that's why Vincent van Gogh, Toulouse Lautrec, among others, died in absolute poverty. So no, art is clearly not about pleasing people, is about expressing yourself through painting, writting, singing, or whatever you like to do. If people understand your work, then perfect, but if they doesn't, you shouldn't change it to please them.

Or maybe you don’t — maybe you say “this is art, and it is inviolate and immutable in the face of outside forces”, which is certainly your choice — but don’t expect anyone to help you bring that piece of crap toprint. Anyone can tell a story. You can sit in your special writing nook and turn out page after page of perfectly unaltered, immutable art and be quite happy — you’re welcome to, in fact. But when you decide you want to make a living off it? Even if you want to just make a little spending money?

Then the rules change. Then it’s work. Then it’s a job. More importantly, then it’s part of a business model, and those golden days of your art being inviolate and immutable blah blah blah are well and truly behind you. Name me a story that saw print, or a movie that saw the Big Screen, and I’ll show you art that changed because of input from someone other than the the original creator — from someone looking at  it from the point of view of the consumer.

Bioware is a company. Making their stories into games is their business model. Hiding behind some kind of “but it’s art, so we’re not changing it” defense is insulting, disingenuous, and flat-out stupid. Worse, it perpetuates the idea that the creator’s output is in some stupid way sancrosant and, as art, cannot be “wrong” or “bad”. If
you as a creator imagine that to be the case — if you think that kind of argument is going to defend your right to never do a rewrite or a revision or line edits or to ever alter, in any way, your precious Artistic Process — discard that notion.

Or become accustomed to a long life as an “undiscovered talent”.

 

That's up to them, isn't it? If they want to put their artistic integrity over their profits, then so be it. I applaud them.

[SkaldFish]

Uriko128 wrote...

<snip/>

 Which is, speaking as a working artist, complete and utter horse****. If you make a movie, and you put in front of focus groups, and they categorically hate the ending, you change it. If you’re writing a book and your first readers tell you the ending is terrible, you fix it. (Ditto your second readers, your second-draft readers, your agent, your editor, your copy editor.)

No you don't. You only do that if you have a particular interest in making money out of the masses. But usually artists are misunderstood, that's why Vincent van Gogh, Toulouse Lautrec, among others, died in absolute poverty. So no, art is clearly not about pleasing people, is about expressing yourself through painting, writting, singing, or whatever you like to do. If people understand your work, then perfect, but if they doesn't, you shouldn't change it to please them.

<snip/>

That's up to them, isn't it? If they want to put their artistic integrity over their profits, then so be it. I applaud them.

I understand the desire to defend an artist's right to create for him/herself, for the pleasure of the act and of the result. I'm right there with you on that point. But Mass Effect 3 was not created to be hung in a gallery. There isn't just one "kind" of artist -- the kind you describe who sacrifices everything to defend his/her work against an imagined enemy.

Nearly everything we see and interact with in this world is art. The trashcan here at my desk was designed by someone who thought the embossed fluting around the outside was a nice touch. In fact, I bought it because I liked that fluting. But I don't imagine that trashcan made it to the store shelves because its designer stood her ground in the face of opposition, spending her last dime to market it herself, and later, shouting "My can stands alone!!!" before dying in abject poverty because she refused to change it in the face of lackluster sales.

Commerical artists simply cannot have it both ways and continue to enjoy the privileges of a loyal customer base. They cannot create products with the goal of selling them, then abdicate by invoking artistic integrity in the face of criticism. Well, not if they want to stay in business. And, your admiration of BioWare notwithstanding, they are not really making that choice.

As you say, though, it is up to them. I don't think anyone here is denying that. The reason it's been a big deal lies partly in the fact that they actively engaged their customer base in what they referred to as a collaborative endeavor, made many very clear promises about how that would play out in the finished game, then drew a line in the sand after they decided it needed to be about their personal creative space being invaded.

I understand that some ME players just don't get why it's such a big deal. I can see that. Maybe as they progress in polish and sophistication, games are becoming more important to people than they should be. Heck, I don't know. That's probably a good discussion to have, but it's not this discussion. People have the reactions they have, and yours is as valid as mine.

I do think I need to suggest that you look into that statement about Lautrec and van Gogh, though. They've always been two of my favorite painters, and I've studied their work and their lives. Neither of them fits the image you're projecting on them. Lautrec was actually one of the more successful French post-impressionists. The son of aristocrats but often ridiculed for his physical deformities, he became a raging alcoholic and often slept wherever he passed out, but he was never poor. He died of syphilis and the effects of long-term alcoholism (the absinthe probably didn't help either) in a very expensive sanitorium paid for by his mother.

Van Gogh suffered from mental illness and recurring health problems all his life (with both syphilis and absinthe playing an important role there as well). He certainly lived for long stretches in poverty, but this was more likely due to his emotional instability than the romantic notion that, in the face of an imagined cruel public who misunderstood him, choosing to sacrifice everything for the sake of his art. He was his own harshest critic, often refusing to sell paintings people offered to buy because he wasn't happy with them. During his last few years, his mental and physical health were his greatest enemies. Just as he was being hailed as a genius by the Parisian critics, he began to spiral into a final depression that he never escaped.

For both men, I suspect "artistic integrity" was more about constantly changing their work than insisting it couldn't be changed. They were both extremely prolific, constantly experimenting based on input from the public and from their colleagues. Van Gogh in particular is known for having taken even the most casual comments about his work to heart. Remarks that his early paintings were "too somber" sent him back to the canvas, and the result was the most amazing and revolutionary use of color the world has ever seen.

https://encrypted-tb...4HJxeXjQCNloXXw
Willows at Sunset - Vincent van Gogh, 1888

Modifié par SkaldFish, 11 avril 2012 - 07:42 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Skald, thank you for that. As an art student myself (went to college to study computer animation, took two, count them, two art history courses during), I read that comment about Van Gogh and was taken aback. You said what I would have said as well or better than I'd have said it.

There's this mistaken idea that I blame on Post-Modernism, that somehow art can only be artistic if it's depressing, misunderstood, or confusing. That somehow the great unwashed masses, solely by virtue of being great, unwashed, and massive, automatically tarnish any artwork by their approval into mere "entertainment".

News flash: Mozart and Bach and Handel and Beethoven were the premiere entertainers of their day. They were the John Lennons and the Elvis Presleys. Everything they made was for the consumption of the masses. I defy anyone to contend that they are not artists, especially not on the grounds that they merely produced entertainment.

Art is art because people can appreciate and enjoy it. There is a reason many more people have and will attend a Mozart concert in their lifetimes than a Stravinsky concert. When only the artist truly understands his art, only the artist will spend time with it. He will eventually be forgotten. Good art is good art precisely because nearly anyone can look or listen and say, "That's enjoyable." Art is art because it moves the people who both create it and witness it.

As a piece of art (and I would likewise defy anyone who says games aren't art) that is, by its very nature, meant to appeal to the masses, Mass Effect, and BioWare, have a responsibility to deliver a product that does not feel obscure, confusing, or most importantly, incomplete.

Too bad nobody seems to be paying attention to this thread any more...

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 12 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[TheLastAwakening]

For the Extended Cut: Will there be an explanation as to why Sovereign couldn't call the Catalyst to get control of the Citadel? I mean the Catalyst basically said it controls the Reapers:

"The Citadel it's my home."- Catalyst, not the Citadel was my home...

"Child: I am the Catalyst."-Catalyst, possibly the child/Catalyst had something to do or knew about the Crucible, but that is merely speculation. + "No, the Citadel is part of me."- Catalyst

Lastly: "Child: The Reapers are mine. I control them. They are my solution."-Catalyst

Alternative: " I control the Reapers. They are my solution."-Catalyst


I maybe one of the few that is actually becoming more fascinated by the Catalyst the more I reread and listen to what it said. So, I am hoping that the extended cut can clarify some of these things:

Lets say the Catalyst didn't know about the crucible then why does it refer to itself as the Catalyst?

What does the Catalyst mean when it says: "The Crucible changed me."-Catalyst

It can't or it won't make the new possibilities happen? I mean the crucible just changed it right?

Ok, I just got to the synthesis part while typing this and my fascination with the Catalyst is gone. Good luck.

Edit: in anticipation... I can speculate that what ever the Crucible did allowed it to know it was the Catalyst, but I don't want to speculate.............!

[Riion]

whitey4444 wrote...

Re: Chris Priestly twitter post

I think the bible does actually talk about what happened to some of them afterwards. Not the best example to use.

There is a lot of similarity between the bible and ME3 though. All four gospels in the bible have the same ending.

God retconned the death of Jesus due to fan outrage. He responded within three days. Now that's customer service. 

Edit: 

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I'll just leave this here.  It's an excerpt, from this excellent blog post by a professional writer, that sums up my thoughts on "art" and its supposedly involate nature far better than I ever could.

<snip>...because of the wall of text I just added...</snip>

The rest of the article is well worth the read, too, as it uses the Lord of the Rings as a model to illustrate exactly where, and how badly, the ending of Mass Effect 3 fails.  Its followup article, describing why the players of the Mass Effect games are co-creators of the story, is nearly as good.

 

Those two blog posts are a pretty good read if you have the time. 

Modifié par Riion, 12 avril 2012 - 03:54 .