216 réponses à ce sujet

[Mylia Stenetch]

Gleym wrote...

Well, Mylia, considering how watching 'drones on BSN defending poor game design and decisions is kinda like watching Christian Fundamentalist protests outside of a fundraiser for cancer patients, why wouldn't they take the time to point and laugh at the circus?

Oh snap I forgot, we are mindless husks following everything Bioware says perfectly. So we will now see BSN laugh at them with they will laugh at BSN. So it falls into internet arguements? So what has been happening since ME3 has come out?

http://files.sharena...2-79936-580.jpg 

Modifié par Mylia Stenetch, 23 avril 2012 - 02:31 .

[Sgt Stryker]

So, no one has answered yet. What kind of game do these "esteemed gentlemen" consider to be a good game? It sounds to me like their standards are just unfeasibly high, especially when you consider the amount of development time ME3 got.

[Pedrak]

To be fair, BSN has seen a lot less of gushing since DA2 and ME3, thankfully. If you open a random thread in a a "general discussion" forum, it's probably going to be a criticism of some kind.

Modifié par Pedrak, 23 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[Gleym]

Well, Mylia, seeing as I've yet to see any kind of rational, coherent statements from Bioware's defenders, the concept of being mindless drones does sort of apply. Particularly with the almost insane idea that Bioware is somehow being 'gracious' by charging 'so little' for an overpriced, rushed and hamfisted trainwreck, as well as this strange blind faith that Bioware couldn't possibly be lying to them, or that the upcoming ending DLC will actually fix anything (not to mention the outright lie that it will deal with everything that people had a problem with in regards to the ending).. or that false advertising, blatant PR spin and lies of omission are suddenly 'perfectly acceptable' business practices, according to these fans.

..So yeah. Given the evidence presented, and given the reality that is proven BY groups like Christian Fundamentalists that there are some truly ignorant, blind zealots out there who will believe any kind of nonsense to the point of mindless obedience, the concept of 'drones isn't exactly something that's a stretch. So getting upset just because you might fall into that category is really just your problem to deal with, not mine.

Modifié par Gleym, 23 avril 2012 - 02:36 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Even if you can accept the need to stop synthetic life, periodic prophylactic omnicide is a completely nonsensical way of doing it? Why couldn't the Reapers, instead of chilling outside the galaxy until they wake up for their mass murder, instead patrol the galaxy on the lookout for other synthetic life and zap them? Why not just keep their massive overwhelming fleets hanging around and threaten organic life into not making synthetics? Why not anything else?

C&C: The three final choices, besides being foisted in (and working via) incredulous space magic, are just recolourings. The plot coupon readiness system effectively serves no purpose besides arbitrarily determining the availability of particular colours. You also never see the consequences of anything you've done, and so the 'long range' outcomes of having Wreav instead of Wrex as Krogan leader, making peace between the Quarians and Geth versus taking one side, and so on, are nil.

Warhammer 40000 universe does certainly make more sense than the whole Mass Effect.

[Akulakhan]

Amioran wrote...

There's nothing in that article that's about "opinions"

Oh man...

[Amioran]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Akulakhan wrote...
meanwhile: http://www.rpgcodex....l-review.71496/

Thank you for proving my point.

I do love that they are copying/paste our comments on their forums. 

So they can make a little of fun of them and play the part of the "victims", for sure.

Just because they copy/paste: I want to ask this TNO if he knows anything at all about the philosophical theme "order vs. chaos". It seems to me he knows nothing about it (as 90% of the people here that pretends to judge the narrative of ME, that's ENTIRELY based upon it) and lacking this knowledge all his judgements on the narrative are completely faulted from beginning, no matter if what he says can be right or wrong. 

Since the reply is obviously NO (if he is not lying about it) he cannot pretend to state a judgment on a thing he has NO BACKGROUND at all upon and that's at the root of all the narrative. It would be like pretending to judge Rimbaud without knowing anything about symbolism and/or latin.

You should expect every review that can be called as such to know these things; alas that's not so.

Modifié par Amioran, 23 avril 2012 - 02:45 .

[Mylia Stenetch]

Gleym wrote...

Well, Mylia, seeing as I've yet to see any kind of rational, coherent statements from Bioware's defenders, the concept of being mindless drones does sort of apply. Particularly with the almost insane idea that Bioware is somehow being 'gracious' by charging 'so little' for an overpriced, rushed and hamfisted trainwreck,

I have not seen anyone come out and say they were graced by such a reasonable price of 70 dollars for a game that needed 3 + months of work. I must be looking in all the wrong places not to see this.

 as well as this strange blind faith that Bioware couldn't possibly be lying to them, or that the upcoming ending DLC will actually fix anything (not to mention the outright lie that it will deal with everything that people had a problem with in regards to the ending).. or that false advertising, blatant PR spin and lies of omission are suddenly 'perfectly acceptable' business practices, according to these fans.
 

I have said before people putting blind trust into a company or just trust that they can make excellence constantly is a fallacy. To false advertising, PR spinning and lies etc, etc. I do not like it ethically and personally. My pessimissm comes in when I know companies do this every day to get us to buy thier product. It is apart of life and best to take most stuff through at your face at a grain of salt at best.

..So yeah. Given the evidence presented, and given the reality that is proven BY groups like Christian Fundamentalists that there are some truly ignorant, blind zealots out there who will believe any kind of nonsense to the point of mindless obedience, the concept of 'drones isn't exactly something that's a stretch. So getting upset just because you might fall into that category is really just your problem to deal with, not mine.

No I do not, I am too much of a cynic and a pessimist to fall into the idea of Bioware can do no wrong. If I did that I would have full blind faith my company I work for has my best intrests in mind. Still calling the people drones that follow blindfully is fine, calling them eqivilant of Christian Fundamentalists, is a slap in the face even for them.

[Pedrak]

Particularly with the almost insane idea that Bioware is somehow being 'gracious' by charging 'so little' for an overpriced, rushed and hamfisted trainwreck, as well as this strange blind faith that Bioware couldn't possibly be lying to them, or that the upcoming ending DLC will actually fix anything (not to mention the outright lie that it will deal with everything that people had a problem with in regards to the ending).. or that false advertising, blatant PR spin and lies of omission are suddenly 'perfectly acceptable' business practices, according to these fans.

Except that in these days the amount of posters in these forums sharing this kind of opinions seems to be laughably low (again, thankfully). Have you actually visited BSN in the last months? Critical threads, ranging from hysterical (which is, admittedly, the flip-side of fanboyism) to rational, appeared to be the majority.

Sure, you'll find blind fanboys everywhere. But saying that the majority of people here were thankful for Day One DLC or for ME3's endings is simply wrong.

Modifié par Pedrak, 23 avril 2012 - 02:50 .

[Seboist]

You know Bioware's writing and game design is overhyped when you have fighting games like Blazblue providing a better planned and cohesive story and popamole shooters like Gears of War providing better tangible choice and consequence.

The sad thing is that review is only scratching the surface of what's bad about ME3. There's no mention of the inane DA2 style no content fetch quests or how when it comes to "war assets" there isn't a lick of difference between a platoon of troops and a fighter squadron beyond some arbitrary number.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Seboist wrote...

You know Bioware's writing and game design is overhyped when you have fighting games like Blazblue providing a better planned and cohesive story and popamole shooters like Gears of War providing better tangible choice and consequence.

The sad thing is that review is only scratching the surface of what's bad about ME3. There's no mention of the inane DA2 style no content fetch quests or how when it comes to "war assets" there isn't a lick of difference between a platoon of troops and a fighter squadron beyond some arbitrary number.

I know in my clique of friends. One was one of the largest Bioware fans due to Baldur's Gate (it is his favorite game). Once he played DA:O he fully gave up on them due to a bug in the system to renderd the game useless, and seeing the ME series feeling the story fell apart quickly.

[Sgt Stryker]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Gleym wrote...

Well, Mylia, seeing as I've yet to see any kind of rational, coherent statements from Bioware's defenders, the concept of being mindless drones does sort of apply. Particularly with the almost insane idea that Bioware is somehow being 'gracious' by charging 'so little' for an overpriced, rushed and hamfisted trainwreck,

I have not seen anyone come out and say they were graced by such a reasonable price of 70 dollars for a game that needed 3 + months of work. I must be looking in all the wrong places not to see this.

For the record, I wouldn't have minded waiting a couple more years for ME3 if that would have meant a solid story free of plot holes and contrivance, polished graphics and gameplay, and true choices and consequences that reflect previous decisions. That said, I would have expected to pay more than the $80 I spent on the CE as a result of extended development time.

[Pedrak]

Seboist wrote...

There's no mention of the inane DA2 style no content fetch quests .

Actually, I was expecting the odious FedEx quests to get torn to pieces in the review, as they deserved.

Modifié par Pedrak, 23 avril 2012 - 02:54 .

[Squallypo]

interesting review, thanks !

[Bad King]

I agree with almost everything in this review.

[Amioran]

Gleym wrote...

Well, Mylia, considering how watching 'drones on BSN defending poor game design and decisions is kinda like watching Christian Fundamentalist protests outside of a fundraiser for cancer patients, why wouldn't they take the time to point and laugh at the circus?

If the "drones" are those that all the time try to debate openly and specifically about things and all they get is "no, you lie, it's only as I say" even in front of evidence of the contrary, then there's nothing to laugh at and if you do so you just play the part of the idiot in front of yourself.

The fact is that I've proven wrong in many threads a lot of people (so called experts) about the ending and their supposed "expertise" about how to judge it and the narrative of ME in the complex.

An intelligent person (but maybe it is asking too much for a "drone", isn't it?) would have just acknowledged that maybe s/he was wrong and research a little more about the thing to understand if what I said was correct or not. Yet all I got here were people that simply the second after said things as if nothing ever happened or those that started yelling "no, it's as I say, you - insert your preferred insult here - are wrong because I say so".

So, who is the "drone"? The one that gets called as such or the one that act as such? And being called "drone" by those that act as such is really a bad thing after all?

Usually sheeps are those that follow others, not those that contrast them. Where the herd stands now?

Modifié par Amioran, 23 avril 2012 - 03:06 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Is there anything specific in the article or it's conclusions you want to address, Amoiran?

Or are you content in claiming that others do not wish to debate the points you have yet to make because those who disagree with you lack the intelligence to acknowledge that they're wrong, or the humility to admit it?

I'm genuinely curious, because you display the exact same behaviour that you excuse the Codex (or those who are simply negative towards Mass Effect 3) of having.

(Keep in mind, I have no real personal feelings or expertise for or against Mass Effect 3 - what I saw on youtube made it out to be pretty crappy, but I did not buy or play Mass Effect 3.)

Modifié par CrustyBot, 23 avril 2012 - 03:51 .

[beyondsolo]

Amioran wrote...

Gleym wrote...

Well, Mylia, considering how watching 'drones on BSN defending poor game design and decisions is kinda like watching Christian Fundamentalist protests outside of a fundraiser for cancer patients, why wouldn't they take the time to point and laugh at the circus?

If the "drones" are those that all the time try to debate openly and specifically about things and all they get is "no, you lie, it's only as I say" even in front of evidence of the contrary, then there's nothing to laugh at and if you do so you just play the part of the idiot in front of yourself.

The fact is that I've proven wrong in many threads a lot of people (so called experts) about the ending and their supposed "expertise" about how to judge it and the narrative of ME in the complex.

An intelligent person (but maybe it is asking too much for a "drone", isn't it?) would have just acknowledged that maybe s/he was wrong and research a little more about the thing to understand if what I said was correct or not. Yet all I got here were people that simply the second after said things as if nothing ever happened or those that started yelling "no, it's as I say, you - insert your preferred insult here - are wrong because I say so".

So, who is the "drone"? The one that gets called as such or the one that act as such? And being called "drone" by those that act as such is really a bad thing after all?

Usually sheeps are those that follow others, not those that contrast them. Where the herd stands now?

You seem to have a very strong position in this. Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to read one of your posts where you presented "evidence," or "proved someone wrong." All I've read so far from you in this thread are references to those events and your statement about how people's opinions turn them into elitist snobs. Would you please point me to one of your posts (or repost your argumentation here) so I can get an idea of the points you're making about the game? Thank you.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 23 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[Mylia Stenetch]

CrustyBot wrote...

Is there anything specific in the article or it's conclusions you want to address, Amoiran?

Or are you content in claiming that others do not wish to debate the points you have yet to make because those who disagree with you lack the intelligence to acknowledge that they're wrong, or the humility to admit it?

From some of the posts I have seen it is this from them. I have seen some very good debates from either side of the coin on this. While others just plug their ears and go la, la, la, la (This is from both sides).

[shepskisaac]

Reviews are highly subjective so I will just mention stuff that's not really factually true:

The elements in this 'main arc' of the story are hopeless. The Crucible comes out of nowhere like the naked 'deus ex machina' plot device it really is: despite the two games' worth of opportunity for foreshadowing, you find the plans for it lying around among the Prothean documents on Mars (why wasn't it discovered earlier?), and the Alliance starts building it.

It was forshadowed in LOTSB. Liara mentions that old Shadow Broker already knew Protheans had other plans. It is thanks to his research and Liara's expertise that she finds the Crucible plans on Mars.

Sadly, it isn't all that good, and the 'Bioware choices' which lead to at-best-cosmetically-different outcomes are out in force. If a party member died in previous installments, their role will be replaced by a functionally (and often word-perfect) equivalent stunt double: Mordin gets replaced with a scientist Salarian, Grunt with another Krogan Leader, Jack with a leader of biotic students, Tali with another Quarian Geth expert, etc. Supposedly important plot decisions count for little: destroy the Collector base and Cerberus still 'recovers' the human reaper and hangs it up in their headquarters, kill the Rachni queen and you still meet another Rachni queen 'created' by the Reapers, get Anderson to be councillor and Udina takes over the role anyway. And so on. It got to the point that whenever I saw an interesting little wrinkle in the game it made me wonder 'how would things have turned out differently?' I reminded myself that, in all likelihood, the difference would have been cosmetic. There are only so many times you can offer illusory choice before you prejudice the audience against you.

While it is true that you get 'stand-ins' for dead squadmates from ME2 or Rachni, there are quite a few  consequences in it. Mordin's replacement - Padok Wiks will not become a War Asset after taking Renegade path during Genophage arc. Grunt's replacement can never survive Rachni Queen extraction. Only Grunt can and he has to be loyal. Jack's replacement (one of her best students) will die trying to save Rodriguez and the teacher of the students will already be dead before you even arrive in the Academy. Tali's replacement won't do anything for peace - you need Tali alive AND not exiled to be able to achieve peace at all. Collector Base decision makes it easier to save Earth in the endings, if you 'stick' to the same kind of moral choice. If you don't, it will be harder. The fake Rachni Queen will betray you and kill Crucible scientists if you extract her. Udina as the Councilor is indeed an example of no consequences & railroading though.

The plot coupon readiness system effectively serves no purpose besides arbitrarily determining the availability of particular colours.

No. It also determines the state of Earth (destroyed/devastated/saved) along with Collector Base decision as mentioned earlier and how the space battle goes earlier on.

+ the "Konclusion" is hysterical since it neglects even what the author compliments himself earlier on in the review. Ironically, it's kinda like ME3 ending, doesn't fit the rest of the review (game). Ohh Kodexia

Modifié par IsaacShep, 23 avril 2012 - 03:56 .

[Il Divo]

beyondsolo wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Gleym wrote...

Well, Mylia, considering how watching 'drones on BSN defending poor game design and decisions is kinda like watching Christian Fundamentalist protests outside of a fundraiser for cancer patients, why wouldn't they take the time to point and laugh at the circus?

If the "drones" are those that all the time try to debate openly and specifically about things and all they get is "no, you lie, it's only as I say" even in front of evidence of the contrary, then there's nothing to laugh at and if you do so you just play the part of the idiot in front of yourself.

The fact is that I've proven wrong in many threads a lot of people (so called experts) about the ending and their supposed "expertise" about how to judge it and the narrative of ME in the complex.

An intelligent person (but maybe it is asking too much for a "drone", isn't it?) would have just acknowledged that maybe s/he was wrong and research a little more about the thing to understand if what I said was correct or not. Yet all I got here were people that simply the second after said things as if nothing ever happened or those that started yelling "no, it's as I say, you - insert your preferred insult here - are wrong because I say so".

So, who is the "drone"? The one that gets called as such or the one that act as such? And being called "drone" by those that act as such is really a bad thing after all?

Usually sheeps are those that follow others, not those that contrast them. Where the herd stands now?

You seem to have a very strong position in this. Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to read one of your posts where you presented "evidence," or "proved someone wrong." All I've read so far from you in this thread are references to those events and your statement about how people's opinions turn them into elitist snobs. Would you please point me to one of your posts (or repost your argumentation here) so I can get an idea of the points you're making about the game? Thank you.

Probably because everytime someone claims to present "evidence" which proves they are right, usually it doesn't. It's just another means to jerk ourselves off to the idea that we somehow won the argument.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Il Divo wrote...
Probably because everytime someone claims to present "evidence" which proves they are right, usually it doesn't. It's just another means to jerk ourselves off to the idea that we somehow won the argument.

Yeah people usually call it trolling where I am from. Both sides were getting pretty bad I felt for a while with a select few.

[BatmanPWNS]

The fact that this review said Male Shepard and Aller are the 2 worst VA makes me wonder what the hell are they on about. Aller I can accept but Meer is not the worse at all.