216 réponses à ce sujet

[Getorex]

Phaedon wrote...

Deuxhero wrote...

Please calculate the time needed for you to spot a single game released post-2004. I'll award you with cookies for it. Virtual cookies. That follow your browsing history forever.

30 seconds. Hi Geneforge series!

Not sure what your problem is either. If you asked what games people liked on BSN, BG2 and MAYBE a NWN expansion and KotOR would be the most universally praised, and none of them (well, Kingmaker was, but that was just a DLC bundle and doesn't count)

...you read half the list in 30 seconds, while remembering every single release date at the same time? Impressive.

My 'problem' is with the specific post at hand. No one suggested that RPGC doesn't like any games, but rather that they have a peculiar pattern of time of release and quality level.

But, tell me, they still think that DE:HR's art style is 'anime', don't they?

Hah! I call nonsense on that!  I LIKE DE:HR and so it is NOT anime styled as I hate anime styling.  Ipso facto!

[Deuxhero]

Getorex wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Deuxhero wrote...

Please calculate the time needed for you to spot a single game released post-2004. I'll award you with cookies for it. Virtual cookies. That follow your browsing history forever.

30 seconds. Hi Geneforge series!

Not sure what your problem is either. If you asked what games people liked on BSN, BG2 and MAYBE a NWN expansion and KotOR would be the most universally praised, and none of them (well, Kingmaker was, but that was just a DLC bundle and doesn't count)

...you read half the list in 30 seconds, while remembering every single release date at the same time? Impressive.

My 'problem' is with the specific post at hand. No one suggested that RPGC doesn't like any games, but rather that they have a peculiar pattern of time of release and quality level.

But, tell me, they still think that DE:HR's art style is 'anime', don't they?

Hah! I call nonsense on that!  I LIKE DE:HR and so it is NOT anime styled as I hate anime styling.  Ipso facto!

Eh, the post he linked to with it is in reference to a pre-release pic that was indeed VERY anime style in the eyes and facical strcture.

[Amioran]

Deuxhero wrote...
^There are MANY works that do Law Vs. Chaos FAR, FAR better than ME.

Can be. Surely it's not perfectly executed, it lacks momentum in many parts and some lapses are too confused and many times it either tries to do too many things altogheter (so not doing any of them as well as they could have been done), but as surely it's not the "crap" people insist it is.

It is not an example of narrative, but it's neither the "bad writing" people say it is.

Naturally if you lack the knowledge of the theme (or you know the same only superficially) there are things you can never connect togheter and the thing may seem much worser than in reality is.

Modifié par Amioran, 23 avril 2012 - 09:59 .

[Akulakhan]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...


EDIT: Flavour for those of the rpgcodex who venture here! Since bioware does too much Only the Chosen One has the Ability to Defeat One True Evil plots, apparently, what about them Dragon Age 2? Pretty welcome variation, I'd agree. Hm, though this is merely for rpgcodex people, please don't make this a DA2 thread now X)

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=224

The “story” is fairly low-key, which I personally consider a plus.
Whereas the hero of the first game was tasked with raising armies and
saving the world, Hawke has more important things to do – raising money
to join an expedition to plunder the Deep Roads, moving up in the world,
and slowly transforming from a poor refugee into a wealthy and
influential citizen.
 
Unfortunately, despite a refreshing move away from epic clichés the
story lacks cohesion and a direction, feeling more like a chain of
random events than a overarching narrative. Things just happen around
you, often without a clear reason or a warning. Maybe it is the
execution that’s lacking or the focus on combat and lack of free
exploration of the world and its characters that get in the way, but the
end result is often jarring. The prized "immersion" is rarely present.

Take
Bethany, for example. She is your sister and an apostate mage. If you
take her with you on the above mentioned expedition, she will get
poisoned by the darkspawn (think zombie bite). While you were shown a
character dying from this poison before (to make a point and create a
precedent), the fact is that when you play the game and slaughter hordes
of the darkspawn nobody ever gets poisoned. So when someone does, it
doesn’t create the desired dramatic effect. It creates the very
opposite, a “oh what the ****, you’ve gotta be kidding me” effect.

[Hawkeye121]

Upon careful review... of his review, I am inclined to agree with the majority of his points. All in all I am sad to say that I'm very dissapointed with the ME3.

-Hawk

[Akulakhan]

Amioran wrote...

Deuxhero wrote...
^There are MANY works that do Law Vs. Chaos FAR, FAR better than ME.

Can be. Surely it's not perfectly executed, it lack momentum and some lapses are too confused and it either tries to do too many things altogheter, but as surely it's not the "crap" people insist it is.

It is not an example of narrative, but it's neither the "bad writing" people say it is.

I think it's like the DA2 theme (ascension instead of "save the world"). It's a good idea on paper but Bioware failed to implement it successfully.

[Getorex]

Amioran wrote...

Getorex wrote...
Nonetheless this person IS investing a chaotic series of 3 games (THERE'S your "chaos" right there...the game series itself because the "story" was created on the fly as the game was developed rather than doing it the RIGHT way and having a story a priori and creating the game from that) with WAY more meaning and depth than it actually has or was actually even intended.  It's like taking the movie "Dumb and Dumber" and trying to invest it (via ex post facto argument) with deep meaning on the "human condition" when it never had that and was never intended to have that. 

For what I see I cannot find any proof that you stated that can attest this. All of this "evidence" is based on your pretence of it being so and that I'm "seeing things". But:

1. You don't know the theme (you dont' either know that the bible has it at its root).
2. Given 1 you cannot recognize it either if you would like to, so how can you pretend to know if it's there or not?

Since I know well the theme and I can recognize it I think I have more saying on this than you, isn't it? But still you continue to assume that for whatever motive I'm just making it all up and pretending ME to be deeper than it is.

As you like. Just a little thing however: I already did knew, for example, that something as the Starchild was to happen much before it did happen (I talked of it with a friend of mine about this, at the time of ME2). With the exclusion of another solution that could have been plausible, in fact, it was a thing perfectly recognizable very early. So I sometimes am astounded by the fact that people insist on saying that the SC just "come out of thin air". It's not so (or better, I can understand why they say so, but that's just because they lack the knowledge of the theme, it's not really "something not introduced").

And to sum it up:

1. The way synthetics are introduced and the way the narrative is created around them (i.e. the conflict against organics etc.) it is all a direct reference to the theme.
2. All the narrative in the background always report to choices etc. referred specifically to the theme. The way some of the "questions" are posed, the way the struggle is explained etc. all are foundable in the theme.
3. The way the Starchild behaves at the end is again a direct reference to the theme. "You cannot question God" is a fundamental aspect of it, as it is the way the Illusion Man behaves and the references of Shepard at "he was right all along". All of these are part of the theme. I explained this in other threads in detail.
4. The three choices in the end are, again, perfectly consistent with the theme, both in the direct aspect (i.e. in the formal choices) and both in the methaphorical one (as in the drawbacks of the choices themselves).

But If it does make you feel better that I "want to see what's not there" and give it more depth than the narrative really has then go on, I will not stop you.

Nor you nor the ones on RPGcodex that insist on telling I'm trolling and yet have to say anything of concrete that disprove what I say. It is too easy to say "you are wrong" when you have nothing to propose of concrete in support of it.

Sorry to bust your nuts and all but the devs themselves have stated they didn't know how they were going to end the series (ME3) until fairly late when 2 (two) individuals alone and in virtual cloister whipped up an ending (that would be Walters and Hudson) out of whole cloth.  They did NOT have a big/bigger storyline to follow.  They haven't had such a thing, just a vague rule of 3: do a trilogy.  The first one worked pretty well, the seond was a punt (the story itself went nowhere and added/subtracting not a single thing to the overarching narrative.  It was merely a vehicle for some fairly interesting social interaction but a totally throw-away plot (human Terminator...err, reaper thingy).  ME3 ending chaotically and illogically.  You can call youself a "writer" all you want  but that doesn't make it so and it certainly doesn't make you THE expert on all things Mass Effecty.  See, I too am an "author" only my writings are scientific papers published in scientific journals.  No confabulation, just he facts.  No made up endings, no torturous route to making sense of the senseless or shallow.  ME3 endings were senseless and shallow, NOT deep, NOT coherent, NOT logical (within or without of the actual story).  Sorry.  Just the facts.  

[Deuxhero]

Has there ever been a GOOD series that was planed from the start as a trilogy?

[Amioran]

Getorex wrote...
Sorry to bust your nuts and all but the devs themselves have stated they didn't know how they were going to end the series (ME3) until fairly late when 2 (two) individuals alone and in virtual cloister whipped up an ending (that would be Walters and Hudson) out of whole cloth. 

I have no problems to understand this. However this doesn't contradict my point. A thing is having something as a theme to follow, a thing is executing it.

They could have done the thing in 100 different ways in execution. Also if you have a structure it doesn't mean that you already know how to put the thing into play in the narrative you have.

When I said I did already understand that something as the SC would have come I don't mean the exact execution in the way it was done. It could have been done in many ways different. I just did know that the theme did gave that direction and if they followed it something having that background (and that structure) would have happened.

Getorex wrote...
They did NOT have a big/bigger storyline to follow.  They haven't had such a thing, just a vague rule of 3: do a trilogy.  The first one worked pretty well, the seond was a punt (the story itself went nowhere and added/subtracting not a single thing to the overarching narrative. 

 
Do you really believe that when authors write a story for whatever medium they do it only for what it concerns the "episode" itself? They write a story then things get cut, some things get expanded etc. etc. The background is already created, the execution is what it changes.

The philosophical theme is part of the structure that creates the background.

When you start the project of a book, for example, you lay the background then when you begin to execute the same you begind to understand how the thing will shape. Also if you have everything laid out on a structure the execution is totally different and it can change dramatically. However when you write a story the "sketch" of it it's already laid out almost in full in its structure or you understand nothing in the end.

If you write in lapses (i.e. you write a piece without having any idea or structure of what it will happen after and you make it all as you go) you just make a mess. This is not how authors work.

It is the same for painters. No painter works without a background laid upon. Naturally the background can change itself, but without it you will mistake all prospective and make a lot of other mistakes. You always have a background on where to work upon that you then finalize. You don't work in pieces, finalizing everyone of them in turn and then come out with the next as a puzzle. If you don't have a full picture (even if only in your mind) nothing will ever come out of it if not something to throw out of the window.

Modifié par Amioran, 23 avril 2012 - 10:19 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Amioran wrote...

It is the same for painters. No painter works without a background laid upon. Naturally the background can change itself, but without it you will mistake all prospective and make a lot of other mistakes. You always have a background on where to work upon that you then finalize. You don't work in pieces, finalizing everyone of them in turn and then come out with the next as a puzzle. If you don't have a full picture (even if only in your mind) nothing will ever come out of it if not something to throw out of the window.

You also don't complete 1/3 of the painting, then hand the other 2/3 over to another painter. 

[Akulakhan]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Amioran wrote...

It is the same for painters. No painter works without a background laid upon. Naturally the background can change itself, but without it you will mistake all prospective and make a lot of other mistakes. You always have a background on where to work upon that you then finalize. You don't work in pieces, finalizing everyone of them in turn and then come out with the next as a puzzle. If you don't have a full picture (even if only in your mind) nothing will ever come out of it if not something to throw out of the window.

You also don't complete 1/3 of the painting, then hand the other 2/3 over to another painter. 

https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Why-Mass-Effect-3-s-writing-wasn-t-that-good.jpeg

[Getorex]

Deuxhero wrote...

Has there ever been a GOOD series that was planed from the start as a trilogy?

Yes but not a game and not a trilogy: Babylon 5.  Written a priori and planned from day 1 to be a 5 year story.  No more.  Followed to a tee in the plot.

[Artemis_Entrari]

The reviewer tended to go overboard, IMO, with some of his (her?) complaints.  But that might be just a case of me having a more liberal suspension of disbelief than they do.  I tend to be more forgiving toward inconsistencies and weak plot devices used to push the story ahead.

But the ending (at around the point the Starchild shows up) is just too much for me to put aside.  Until then, I really had no issue with the game, despite a lot of its inconsistencies and silly plot devices.

So I agree with the reviewer about the ending, just not necessarily am as vitriolic as they are about the beginning and middle.

[survivor_686]

Ouch...

[PaddlePop]

Absolutely spot on! I can't say that I'm a fan of the codex but their review hits all the right spots. Sadly the powers that be will never read it, and will continue to hide behind artistic integrity and space magic.

[Getorex]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

The reviewer tended to go overboard, IMO, with some of his (her?) complaints.  But that might be just a case of me having a more liberal suspension of disbelief than they do.  I tend to be more forgiving toward inconsistencies and weak plot devices used to push the story ahead.

But the ending (at around the point the Starchild shows up) is just too much for me to put aside.  Until then, I really had no issue with the game, despite a lot of its inconsistencies and silly plot devices.

So I agree with the reviewer about the ending, just not necessarily am as vitriolic as they are about the beginning and middle.

The ending of ME 3 violated this rule: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA

[brfritos]

Amioran wrote...

...It is not an example of narrative, but it's neither the "bad writing" people say it is. 

I'm not a professsional writer nor cronist, much less a student of philosophie or related disciplines, but ME3 has the weakest narrative of the series among other game related inconsistencies.

Is not "crap" like many people say, I agree with you, but it could be better and is not the "brilliant masterpiece except the endings" that I also read so many times.
ME3 is a very irregular game, with some great moments and some very bad moments.

The reviwer was very good at pointing them.

[PaddlePop]

brfritos wrote...

Amioran wrote...

...It is not an example of narrative, but it's neither the "bad writing" people say it is. 

I'm not a professsional writer nor cronist, much less a student of philosophie or related disciplines, but ME3 has the weakest narrative of the series among other game related inconsistencies.

Is not "crap" like many people say, I agree with you, but it could be better and is not the "brilliant masterpiece except the endings" that I also read so many times.
ME3 is a very irregular game, with some great moments and some very bad moments.

The reviwer was very good at pointing them.

My sentiments exactly...

[Eterna]

That was awful.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

I found it funny, can't take it seriously.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Deuxhero wrote...

Has there ever been a GOOD series that was planed from the start as a trilogy?

My dinner I made was an awesome trilogy of food.

For anything else, no there has never been a real good trilogy IMO. Lord of the Rings book comes the closest for me. Aside from that novels usual sprawl (I'm looking at your corpse Robert Jordan). Movies just reboot ad nauseum. Now games will be soon following suit of this protocol to milk all of us out.

At least antidoctal evidence I have is Metroid Prime Trilogy. A lot of people I know truly love the trilogy.

[Getorex]

brfritos wrote...

Amioran wrote...

...It is not an example of narrative, but it's neither the "bad writing" people say it is. 

I'm not a professsional writer nor cronist, much less a student of philosophie or related disciplines, but ME3 has the weakest narrative of the series among other game related inconsistencies.

Is not "crap" like many people say, I agree with you, but it could be better and is not the "brilliant masterpiece except the endings" that I also read so many times.
ME3 is a very irregular game, with some great moments and some very bad moments.

The reviwer was very good at pointing them.

Yep, pretty much.

Graphics and gameplay: mixed bag but pretty good (PCs have a LOT of keys...don't stick so much on one damn key!  Cover is WAY too sticky).
The krogan-salarian-turian-genophage thing: Very good
Geth-Quarian thing: Damn good
Romancy stuff: Weak tea (same throughout entire game but weaker with each subsequent game with increasing levels of ridiculous extraneous clothing kept on at all the wrong times, ie, bras and panties all night in bed, fully clothed in the friggin' shower, etc.  PG13 movies do a MUCH better job with this than ME3 did).
Last convos with everybody before London ground fight: Good (except for Wrex and Samara which were "meh" and clear throw-aways or tack-ons).
Throw-away rachni queen redux of indoc: WTF?  Why not bring back the Thorian too as long as we are blowing off previous decisions and actions! Save the original queen, don't save the queen, no big deal and no real effect.
Jersey Shore crap (Vega) and that Allers creature: sweet merciful crap! I think I'm gonna be sick.
Geth AGAIN going w/Reapers: WTF?!  We took care of the damn "heretics" in ME2!
Citadel coup attempt by Cerberus: Ridiculous
Reaper tactics: Total crap
Citadel magic transport to Earth: W. T. F!?
The crucible MacGuffin: Ah c'mon!  Really?
Anderson, TIM both making it onto the Citadel before you: For the love of Cthulhu people!
Starbast@rd and tricolor ending: Absolutely retarded. We're talking IQ 50 range here folks...with short term memory loss layered on top to boot!
The whole "you need to do MP DURING SP to max out points" that actually end up NOT DOING JACK SQUAT: Epic fail.
Eavesdrop-based side missions that are not even really missions, just chance stumbling upon a knicknack here or there and then hoofing it back to the citadel to search high and low for whomever is supposed to get the knicknack: Full retard.
Pulling out core game content to turn it into day 1 DLC: Over the friggin' line Bioware!

Modifié par Getorex, 24 avril 2012 - 01:40 .

[Baconandliver]

Attempts to paint ME3's story as philosophically compelling are... odd. I'm not the type to demand anyone stop enjoying ME3, just because I don't like it. However, one should accept what it is, and the reasons they enjoy it, not create elaborate yet flimsy philosophical justifications for their enjoyment, as if they are ashamed of it.

Using one's education in a grasping attempt to place B-movie grade space schlock on the same level as truly great philosophical, religious, and academic texts is a betrayal; both of the highbrow, and of the B-movie entertainment one enjoys (after all, what fun there is to be derived from it comes from the knowledge that you don't need to take it seriously). Let the lowbrow entertainment you enjoy retain what virtues it has, instead of going through absurd contortions to make it seem vaguely highbrow, out of some strange sense of shame.

Phaedon wrote...

Due to a busy schedule I won't be actually be playing the game for another month at least, but in the meantime, I'll leave this comment from RPG Codex.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/list-of-the-must-play-games.55367/

You can add Jagged Alliance 2, Vampire the masquerade bloodlines, Deus Ex, System Shock 1+2, thief 1+2 and UFO: Enemy unknown (XCom UFO defense in kwanzania) to the list of games that we generally around here.

Please calculate the time needed for you to spot a single game released post-2004. I'll award you with cookies for it. Virtual cookies. That follow your browsing history forever.

8 Seconds. Knights of the Chalice is from 2009, and it's in the third row. You'd best get baking those cookies.

Anyway, those games are far from the only ones that many on the Codex enjoy. You mentioned Deus Ex: HR, for instance. I looked and found a current RPGCodex poll that shows 70.5% of users saying it was either "Really Good", or "A few minor flaws but mostly good". Seriously, they can even like a cover-shooter reboot of a beloved franchise if it's executed well enough. This is pretty clear evidence that the idea that "Codexers only enjoy >8 year old games, and hate most of those" is just plain false.

Also, maybe it's because I'm tired and not reading things right, but are you saying that you think people there agree with Walters that ME is hard sci-fi? Because most all mentions of ME as hard sci-fi I've noticed on the Codex look like well-deserved mockery, not approval.

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

EDIT2: For future reference, Menckenstein, you are the one who will have to PM me and not the other way around kkthx [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/love.png[/smilie]

I think you should make an exception and contact him first. That Menckenstein seems like a scholar and a gentleman.

Modifié par Baconandliver, 24 avril 2012 - 02:52 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The amount of backhurt is high indeed!

Seeing the most intelligent and experienced players including my top friends find ME3 full of flaws, I wonder how naive the posters here are - persuaded by few cool moments of the game.

[Eterna]

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

The amount of backhurt is high indeed!

Seeing the most intelligent and experienced players including my top friends find ME3 full of flaws, I wonder how naive the posters here are - persuaded by few cool moments of the game.

Everything has flaws. It was your choice to overplay them until you could no longer enjoy the game.