216 réponses à ce sujet

[blurbrbrb]

Amioran wrote...
And that's the point. You cannot focus on the narrative and judge the same without addressing the theme behind. It would be like trying to judge, for example, American Psycho of Ellis without considering at all the existential theme (in synthesis)in the background or judging Alastor the Spirit of the Solitude of Swinburne without considering the nihilist theme (and/or the esoteric one) in the same.

Of course you can. You can judge American Psycho based on its merits as a satire of individualistic capitalism or examine it as a deranged, unethical successor to Crime and Punishment, or just attempt to analyse how it functions as a thriller that keeps pushing the boundaries of taste. You can write an article about Hamlet as an Oedipal play or a repurposing of the revenge tragedy or a breakdown of the 'man of action', etc, etc.

The fact that an article does not deal with someone's particular hobby-horse of a theme doesn't make it automatically worthless, so long as it's engaging with the material. Likewise, the reviewer doesn't address gameplay because, as he makes clear, he's not interested in giving the full picture of the game; he wants to focus on the nuts and bolts of the plot and the problems therein. Which is fine.

Modifié par blurbrbrb, 24 avril 2012 - 03:05 .

[Amioran]

An this is in reply to one guy (centurionofprix) in the RPGCodex forums:

"Yes, and the ancient Greeks and Conrad and Eliot and God knows who else. But the name dropping alone of great authors who treated on these themes won't help explain what Mass Effect supposedly says about these themes on a meaningful level. A primary school fantasy nerd's Catti-Brie fan fiction can "have" themes, as well, even of "order vs. chaos". It's a different thing to say something meaningful about them. "

1. To understand if the narrative says something meaningful about the theme you must know the theme first. This is all my complain about the article. While it points many things, all those things are completely irrelevant just for this. I will explain this better in the next point.

2. "Saying something meaningful" can be a matter of execution as a matter of structure. In the former case the execution of ME is surely lacking in many points, but the structure is there. You can debate on the fact that some things are presented in a poor manner, but, while this is an aspect of "bad writing" I cannot take the judgemnt plausibly when you don't consider at all why that's so in reality (and give evidence that is not relevant at all to prove the same, and on the contrary it does just the opposite).

If people would say "it's bad writing because the theme is presented poorly in this and this", for example, I would at last give credit to what they say and probably either agree with them, but when they say something on the line of "it's bad writing because the Starchild doesn't make any sense" I'm sorry but I cannot take them seriously at all, because the SC is completely consistent with the theme behind. The execution can be lacking but the "sense" and "reason to be so" it's there, absolutely.

So, it's all a matter of the "evidence" you bring on the table. Also if a thing really sucks but to evidence this you use examples that proves totally the contrary then the fact that it really sucks or not it doesn't matter anymore.

Example: painting A is badly executed, but you insist that it is badly done because the artist didn't use the color correctly when in the contrary the color is the only thing done well. Does it change anything at all in your faulty judgment if the painting is really badly executed or not?

EDIT: Btw, I like your Sisters of Mercy's logo. One point in your favor

Modifié par Amioran, 24 avril 2012 - 03:33 .

[Mylia Stenetch]

Getorex wrote..
There is no "narrrative".  Accept this and the blinders come off and you see it for what it is: a B-movie in a game skin.  Plain and simple.  QUIT READING TOO MUCH INTO THE DAMN GAME!  Sheesh.  Get a life.  There is no "there" there.  No narrative, no over-arching story, no coherence, no logic beyond toothpick logic (it will break down with the slightest intellectual pressure).  By Cthulhu there is NO great philosphy in this game, nothing but the barest sprinkling of the "human condition" in the game.  It is multiple plot holes covered by heavy syrup and a prestidigitator's distraction technique to avert your gaze from what is REALLY there...nothing.  My Cthulhu you are full of...something...something brownish, extremely smelly, and chock full of bacteria.

Technically there is a narrative to the story, while it is basic at best, like all games are. The narrative pretty much is you talking to people etc nothing special it is like a D&D game. To the over-arching story it is  "Shepard vs the Reapers". Coherance is shoddy at best, this is not a rare ocurrance in games people plod over it with immagination. Logic...it still a game like everything else, that should be noted on aliens, alien sex, 
Cthulhu -esque creaters come every X years to kill all.

Indeed what Amioran is doing is strawmaning and his trolling is also good. From what I am seeing he is catching you good on this.  

Modifié par Mylia Stenetch, 24 avril 2012 - 03:12 .

[Amioran]

blurbrbrb wrote...
Of course you can. You can judge American Psycho based on its merits as a satire of individualistic capitalism or examine it as a deranged, unethical successor to Crime and Punishment, or just attempt to analyse how it functions as a thriller that keeps pushing the boundaries of taste.

That's part of the theme. You are actually considering the theme when providing a judgement.

Try to do the same without doing it.

A correct example to do so would be pretending to judge American Psycho without considering these points, pretending it's just an attempt of the writer to ****** the reader with gratuitus violence without a real motivation, or disturbing the reader with a picture of society that's a catastrophic supposition and nothing more. How would you consider a review as that? 

A review that completely misses the context (and so the theme) the book is based upon and so a review that lacks the base to form a true judgement. It's still a review, but everybody understanding why Ellis did what he did can fully get why it completely misses the point.
 

blurbrbrb wrote...
You can write an article about Hamlet as an Oedipal play or a repurposing of the revenge tragedy or a breakdown of the 'man of action', etc, etc.

And again you are considering themes on your judgment. Really your examples are just proving my point.
The fact here is that when you know what the thing is about you cannot extrapolate the theme from the narrative, you do it automatically.

If you want a judgement on Hamlet without considering the theme you would have to ask someone that probably never studied it to read it and give a judgment. You will see immediately the fault of the judgment because s/he will lack the background on it you have. And note well: this is totally separate from liking not liking the book.

blurbrbrb wrote...
The fact that an article does not deal with someone's particular hobby-horse of a theme doesn't make it automatically worthless, so long as it's engaging with the material.

You cannot engage the material without engaging the theme. Doing such would just make an hilarious judgement. Try what I say above, you will understand of what I'm talking about.

blurbrbrb wrote...
Likewise, the reviewer doesn't address gameplay because, as he makes clear, he's not interested in giving the full picture of the game; he wants to focus on the nuts and bolts of the plot and the problems therein. Which is fine.

And how can he understand the plot problems without knowing the context of the plot? It's impossible (in the sense that you can do it but anyway what you have is just nonsense, as in the examples above).

Modifié par Amioran, 24 avril 2012 - 03:17 .

[Kidd]

Menckenstein wrote...
Sorry hotbabe but I don't have any Bioware titles , so we are trapped as star-crossed lovers, seperated by eternity (30 days). 

Alas, the vast oceans of the internet sprawl in between us, capturing our love betwixt its waves. The desire in my heart cries out for you. Without your touch, I am forlorn. Please, oh gentle man of mystery, ride onto the BSN on your blackest stallion, and take me into the deepest night. For I am a maiden so lost, only within the enkindling darkness of your embrace may I know myself again!

 

Menckenstein wrote...

I sincerely hope anyone reading the review or this thread gives some of the Codex approved games a spin, I think they'll have a ****ing blast and if it changes their outlook or at least gives them a better appreciation for the classics I hope they join the ranks of the Codex and immerse (derp) themselves in the incline.

On it, though I have a feeling it will only add games to my personal good games list instead of somehow making me believe one of my fav developers aren't great at their craft =) Moar good games are always a good thing though!

[Kaiser Shepard]

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.

I should've never used the Gears argument so often that you and several others could startto take it over. What am I to use as an example now? Golden Sun, for having pulled off the save-import gimmick in a similar fashion almost a decade ago? Overall equally unimpressive from a story perspective; just a handful of exclusive scenes (although the GS ones do lead to the player getting unique pieces of equipment), but at least it never pretended to do as such, and the import actually had gameplay functionality as well (carrying over your old party exactly as they were in the first game, experience and first game-exclusive equipment included, as well as unlocking a secret bonus dungeon that gave you an ultimate boss + the ultimate summon if you met a certain requirement in both games).

Or maybe Shadow the Hedgehog, which despite all the crap it got at the time, apparently still pulls off having multiple endings better than Bioware does after this so-called ambitious trilogy?

As for the Kodex review, that's some good stuff as usual. Maybe not as critical as I would've liked, but it was majestic enough to make it worth reading.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 24 avril 2012 - 03:43 .

[blurbrbrb]

Amioran wrote...

blurbrbrb wrote...
Of course you can. You can judge American Psycho based on its merits as a satire of individualistic capitalism or examine it as a deranged, unethical successor to Crime and Punishment, or just attempt to analyse how it functions as a thriller that keeps pushing the boundaries of taste.

That's part of the theme. You are actually considering the theme when providing a judgement.

Try to do the same without doing it.

A correct example to do so would be pretending to judge American Psycho without considering these points, pretending it's just an attempt of the writer to ****** the reader with gratuitus violence without a real motivation, or disturbing the reader with a picture of society that's a catastrophic supposition and nothing more. How would you consider a review as that? 

A review that completely misses the context (and so the theme) the book is based upon and so a review that lacks the base to form a true judgement. It's still a review, but everybody understanding why Ellis did what he did can fully get why it completely misses the point.
 

blurbrbrb wrote...
You can write an article about Hamlet as an Oedipal play or a repurposing of the revenge tragedy or a breakdown of the 'man of action', etc, etc.

And again you are considering themes on your judgment. Really your examples are just proving my point.
The fact here is that when you know what the thing is about you cannot extrapolate the theme from the narrative, you do it automatically.

If you want a judgement on Hamlet without considering the theme you would have to ask someone that probably never studied it to read it and give a judgment. You will see immediately the fault of the judgment because s/he will lack the background on it you have. And note well: this is totally separate from liking not liking the book.

No. My point was that there are many aspects to any work, good or terrible; most of them have more than one theme, as in my above examples, and said themes are rarely all-encompassing; in discussing the work, you're perfectly free to focus upon any one of these aspects without your discussion being declared redundant by some higher authority, so long as you actually have something to say about the material. I already stated, for instance, that you can examine American Psycho as a button-pushing thriller or a re-write of an older book, or Hamlet as a revenge tragedy. You could write about Moby Dick in terms of the accuracy of its portrayal of whaling, if you liked. These aren't about 'themes', and so long as they're not claiming to be definitive (as this 'narratological review' so obviously isn't) they cannot be dismissed just because they haven't mentioned something you personally believe to be important - they're just giving a different reading of the material.

'Chaos vs order' is, you argue, Mass Effect 3's central (only?) theme, a curiously vague theme, and you believe you can explain each of the various problems with the game's plot by stating that it's a matter of 'chaos vs order'. But  you also seem to believe that someone who sees those problems as creative mis-steps and who's interested in focusing on their effect upon the quality of the game, instead of viewing them in the light of your specific cure-all, is somehow getting it wrong. He isn't.

Modifié par blurbrbrb, 24 avril 2012 - 03:56 .

[Deuxhero]

sea- wrote...

And here I thought posting the words "RPG Codex" led to an instant ban on these boards.  I'm genuinely surprised.

Nah, you are thinking of Bethesda's forums.

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

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.

I should've never used the Gears argument
so often that you and several others could startto take it over. What
am I to use as an example now? Golden Sun, for having pulled off the
save-import gimmick in a similar fashion almost a decade ago? Overall
equally unimpressive from a story perspective; just a handful of
exclusive scenes (although the GS ones do lead to the player getting
unique pieces of equipment), but at least it never pretended to do as
such, and the import actually had gameplay functionality as well
(carrying over your old party exactly as they were in the first game,
experience and first game-exclusive equipment included, as well as
unlocking a secret bonus dungeon that gave you an ultimate boss + the
ultimate summon if you met a certain requirement in both games).

Might and Magic 2 is more appliable, as it wasn't planed out (GS was victim of cartridge space limits).

Modifié par Deuxhero, 24 avril 2012 - 03:47 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Getorex wrote...

There is no "narrrative".  Accept this and the blinders come off and you see it for what it is: a B-movie in a game skin.  Plain and simple.  QUIT READING TOO MUCH INTO THE DAMN GAME!  Sheesh.  Get a life.  There is no "there" there.  No narrative, no over-arching story, no coherence, no logic beyond toothpick logic (it will break down with the slightest intellectual pressure).  By Cthulhu there is NO great philosphy in this game, nothing but the barest sprinkling of the "human condition" in the game.  It is multiple plot holes covered by heavy syrup and a prestidigitator's distraction technique to avert your gaze from what is REALLY there...nothing.  My Cthulhu you are full of...something...something brownish, extremely smelly, and chock full of bacteria.

Ouch, that seems exceedingly harsh. Let me ask you this though, is this a trend that you see with most other game stories, or are your views exclusive to the Mass Effect series? If it's the former, then where exactly are these good games with what you consider a true "narrative?" And yes I am sincerely asking; there is no ulterior motive in my posts.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 24 avril 2012 - 03:54 .

[Amioran]

blurbrbrb wrote...
No - my point is that there are many aspects to any work, good or terrible; most of them have more than one theme, as in my above examples, and said themes are rarely all-encompassing.

To judge a narrative you must know all the context. There's no other way around. 
You can judge a narrative also without knowing the full context, sure, but the judgement will be faulted, there's no way outside of it.

If you try to judge whatever work and you miss the context some critic that know it will point your fallacy. It happens all the times, in fact, because nobody can know everything. However if you are an intelligent critic you understand your fault and you don't insist that you don't need the full context to judge a narrative.

Ask whatever critic, he will tell you the same.

You can try to judge a work only on technical and/or "superficial" aspects, but those technical/superficial aspects will anyway be tied to the context of the narrative in any case, either if you know it or not, so you risk at every turn of not understanding correctly if the "fallacy" you think it's there it's really an objective one or it's just motivated by your lack of understanding of the context.
 

blurbrbrb wrote...
And, in discussing the work, you're perfectly free to focus upon any one of these aspects without your discussion being declared redundant. I already stated, for instance, that you can examine American Psycho as a button-pushing thriller or a re-write of an older book, or Hamlet as a revenge tragedy. You can write about Moby Dick in terms of the accuracy of its portrayal of whaling, if you like. These aren't 'themes', they're just different readings of the text.

Stil in your "examining" AP as a "button-pushing thriller" and Hamlet as a "revenge tragedy" you used themes in your examples, so they were not good examples at all of disproving my point, totally the contrary.

I already made an example of what would have consistuted an "examination" of AP as the same without considering the theme, and it was all another thing that what you said, in fact, and everyone knowing the themes behind the book would understand immediately the fallacies in that "examination".

You can do what you want, still, as you judge the others' work, someone other will judge yours.

blurbrbrb wrote...
'Chaos vs order' is, you argue, Mass Effect 3's central (only?),

It's not the only one, but it's probably the central theme, yes.

blurbrbrb wrote...
curiously vague theme, and you believe you can explain each of the various problems with the game's plot by stating that it's a matter of 'chaos vs order'. But  you also seem to believe that someone who examines those problems as creative mis-steps and who focuses on their effect upon the quality of the game, instead of viewing them in the light of your specific cure-all, is getting it wrong. He isn't.

I provide you an example. You have a joke that references a pun of an old movie. Someone that doesn't know the movie try to provide an objective judgment of the joke, however, naturally lacking the knowlege of the pun, he will much probably (i.e. surely) miss completely the context (probably mistaking the joke for something else).

Do you believe that those that instead understand the pun will take that "judgment" as a plausible one? Do you think the judgement of the joke can really have some meaning lacking the real context? Then if you judge the joke as well done the thing can be excused (in the sense that people can still have piety of your naivety and let it pass once), but if you insist the joke is badly done because you lack the context you do the figure of the idiot to everybody that know the reality of the situation.

If you want I can provide examples of the above, but I'm sure this is not necessary and you can, indeed, understand that you CANNOT separate the two things when one supports the other. 

Modifié par Amioran, 24 avril 2012 - 04:10 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Deuxhero wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

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.

I should've never used the Gears argument
so often that you and several others could startto take it over. What
am I to use as an example now? Golden Sun, for having pulled off the
save-import gimmick in a similar fashion almost a decade ago? Overall
equally unimpressive from a story perspective; just a handful of
exclusive scenes (although the GS ones do lead to the player getting
unique pieces of equipment), but at least it never pretended to do as
such, and the import actually had gameplay functionality as well
(carrying over your old party exactly as they were in the first game,
experience and first game-exclusive equipment included, as well as
unlocking a secret bonus dungeon that gave you an ultimate boss + the
ultimate summon if you met a certain requirement in both games).

Might and Magic 2 is more appliable, as it wasn't planed out (GS was victim of cartridge space limits).

Fair enough, as the same scenario applies to the Mass Effect series as well.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 24 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[Akulakhan]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

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.

I should've never used the Gears argument so often that you and several others could startto take it over. What am I to use as an example now? Golden Sun, for having pulled off the save-import gimmick in a similar fashion almost a decade ago? Overall equally unimpressive from a story perspective; just a handful of exclusive scenes (although the GS ones do lead to the player getting unique pieces of equipment), but at least it never pretended to do as such, and the import actually had gameplay functionality as well (carrying over your old party exactly as they were in the first game, experience and first game-exclusive equipment included, as well as unlocking a secret bonus dungeon that gave you an ultimate boss + the ultimate summon if you met a certain requirement in both games).

Or maybe Shadow the Hedgehog, which despite all the crap it got at the time, apparently still pulls off having multiple endings better than Bioware does after this so-called ambitious trilogy?

As for the Kodex review, that's some good stuff as usual. Maybe not as critical as I would've liked, but it was majestic enough to make it worth reading.

The funny thing is seeing Bioware devs (and their drones) trashing jRPGs because they are linear when you have games like Shin Negima Tensei, Radiant Historia and Summon Night (and these aren't even the best examples) with more branching storyline and C&C than anything that Bioware ever did.
Anyway, every time Gaider open his mouth (especially on the recent chat with Chris Avellone and Levine) I remember this line of dialogue from New Vegas:

Thomas Hildern wrote...

Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have.

[blurbrbrb]

Amioran wrote...

I provide you an example. You have a joke that references a pun of an old movie. Someone that doesn't know the movie try to provide an objective judgment of the joke, however, naturally lacking the knowlege of the pun, he will naturally miss completely the context (probably mistaking the joke for something else).

Do you believe that those that instead understand the pun will take that "judgment" as a plausible one? Do you think the judgement of the joke can really have some meaning lacking the real context?

If you want I can provide examples of why this isn't possible, but I'm sure this is not necessary and you can, indeed, understand that you CANNOT separate the two things when one supports the other. 

I don't think it follows whatsoever that 'without the proper context, you might not get a joke' means that 'without basing your article around one highly debatable thematic element, your analysis of the plot holes and artificialities of a 20-hour storyline is worthless' - I think that's about as reductive an analogy as it's possible to make. Still, if you like: even if I don't understand the punchline, I can analyse the joke's pacing, or whether or not its structure repeats - it's still perfectly valid technical criticism.

Modifié par blurbrbrb, 24 avril 2012 - 04:17 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Akulakhan wrote...

The funny thing is seeing Bioware devs (and their drones) trashing jRPGs because they are linear when you have games like Shin Negima Tensei, Radiant Historia and Summon Night (and these aren't even the best examples) with more branching storyline and C&C than anything that Bioware ever did.

What's even more hilarious is that they went from that attitude to doing a dlc crossover with the very sequel to the game they initially trashed.

Made even more awkward by fact that the quote in that first article needs, well, very little editing to apply to ME as well.

[Seboist]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

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.

I should've never used the Gears argument so often that you and several others could startto take it over. What am I to use as an example now? Golden Sun, for having pulled off the save-import gimmick in a similar fashion almost a decade ago? Overall equally unimpressive from a story perspective; just a handful of exclusive scenes (although the GS ones do lead to the player getting unique pieces of equipment), but at least it never pretended to do as such, and the import actually had gameplay functionality as well (carrying over your old party exactly as they were in the first game, experience and first game-exclusive equipment included, as well as unlocking a secret bonus dungeon that gave you an ultimate boss + the ultimate summon if you met a certain requirement in both games).

Or maybe Shadow the Hedgehog, which despite all the crap it got at the time, apparently still pulls off having multiple endings better than Bioware does after this so-called ambitious trilogy?

As for the Kodex review, that's some good stuff as usual. Maybe not as critical as I would've liked, but it was majestic enough to make it worth reading.

Red Dead Redemption's Honor system is vastly superior to ME's garbage Paragon/Renegade system as far as having tangible choice and consequence and an impact on the game world as well.

Back to the subject of how the ME series utterly fails as a story, I just got done replaying Ys Seven for the PSP and it's handling of it's simple story of the hero breaking the cycle of destruction using the power of the Dragon Gods of the land of Altago is far superior to ME3's. See, unlike ME and it's garbage crucible and reaper plot this game right from the get-go informs the player that the land and the lives of it's citizens revolve around said Dragon Gods and how harnassing their power is the key to resolving the calamity they're facing and it builds up on this bit by bit as the story goes on. There's no fumbling around fighting filler bad guys or getting a plot device that has no foreshadowing or any clue what it's even supposed to do. Oh and the ending is far better too.

So yeah, a relatively niche and obscure Japanese ARPG with a vastly smaller budget and a plot that's a throwback to the SNES days achieves more in one 20 hour game than what Bioware and it's "talented"  overhyped writers couldn't across three games.

[mauro2222]

InvincibleHero wrote...

@mauro2222
 

If you want to claim you have never posted anything highly negative towards ME3 then go ahead. I have read many of  them. You may not have used those exact words, but you do make negative comments every chance you get about the game. Your comment was just a see they even think it sucks in the entirety which you agree with. That is real helpful feedback BTW.

Did you read the review and the conclusions it draws? You are agreeing with it with your answer. They said it is a game not worth playing for new players and ME3 ruins the whole series so that fans should not want to play it either. That does not equate to throw ME3 in the trashbin?  That is also some of the nicer comments about the game.

FYI saying there are problems with the whole game means it is garbage because who would want to play a game riddled through with poor quality? You agreed with a highly negative pan of ME3 and the whole series actually.

Yes... but I still love the universe and the characters regardless of those huge problems, wich of course need to be fixed, see the difference?

And for the record, you're still putting words in my mouth, I only said "Finally, someone who sees the problems with the whole game", is rather different to "I agree wholeheartedly with this review".

I care about this universe, that's the only reason I'm still here. If talking about the problems is bad for the game, well it's better for the future of the ME universe.

And no... problems with the hole game is very subjective, you're assuming to much of a very few words. I like parts of the game, I love some parts of the game, and I utterly despise a lot of the game. Not all my comments are about the crappy parts, I talked a lot about the parts I liked (Squadmates deaths, banter, music).

Modifié par mauro2222, 24 avril 2012 - 04:50 .

[Meshaber]

Such a well written piece of garbage. That, of course, is the mark of the "esteemed gentlemen" of the codex. It's amazing to me how anyone can take the time to write something like this and still come out saying things like "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?", a point of criticism that has been debunked time and time again, or "why the Quarians picked the onset of the Reaper invasion to start a galactic war with the Geth", which is explained in-game (not to mentioned heavily implied in the predecessor), and you have ample opportunity to be pissed at them for doing it.

[sea-]

Meshaber wrote...

Such a well written piece of garbage. That, of course, is the mark of the "esteemed gentlemen" of the codex. It's amazing to me how anyone can take the time to write something like this and still come out saying things like "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?", a point of criticism that has been debunked time and time again, or "why the Quarians picked the onset of the Reaper invasion to start a galactic war with the Geth", which is explained in-game (not to mentioned heavily implied in the predecessor), and you have ample opportunity to be pissed at them for doing it.

SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE THE GAMES I LIKE, AND OFFERED WELL CONSTRUCTED ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR OPINION

;_______________________________;

Modifié par sea-, 24 avril 2012 - 05:02 .

[Amioran]

blurbrbrb wrote...
I don't think it follows whatsoever that 'without the proper context, you might not get a joke' means that 'without basing your article around one highly debatable thematic element, your analysis of the plot holes and artificialities of a 20-hour storyline is worthless' - I think that's about as reductive an analogy as it's possible to make. Still, if you like: even if I don't understand the punchline, I can analyse the joke's pacing, or whether or not its structure repeats - it's still perfectly valid technical criticism.

You can, sure, but if this judgement willl be flawed (as in this case pretending the joke to make no sense) because you lack the context (so that you mistake a thing for another) it will do you not good if you were analyzing only the joke's pacing or the structure, or if you instead were considering everything. If the judgement is faulted it is so anyway.

I do understand the point that you are making, but I would like to make you comprehend that it's not relevant in any way as an excuse if the judgment is flawed because you lack the context.

In the example I made about American Psycho, of the judgment of the narrative without considering the context, it will be totally irrelevant if the critic writing it will say that s/he was just judging the book from a generic "thriller" point, considering only general points. The review will still be faulted because it lacked context and s/he did mistake a thing for another. Because also if you consider only some points, since the theme is usually connected with the narrative in everyone of them (being the context), then if you lack the knowledge of the same you will necessarily lack all the informations to provide an objective review, and this in turn will probably make you do some error in the judgement (of whatever type).

If you then consider only certain points or all of them it doesn't change the fact that if your judgment will be flawed from the lack of the context it's irrelevant from which angle you were looking at it.

Same as if you miss a red light while driving and you make a crash it is totally irrelevant if you insist that "I was considering only the left side of the road, so the light in front of me was not necessary on my research".

Modifié par Amioran, 24 avril 2012 - 05:33 .

[Meshaber]

sea- wrote...

SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE THE GAMES I LIKE, AND OFFERED WELL CONSTRUCTED ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR OPINION

;_______________________________;

It wasn't "well constructed", it was well written, from a purely rhetorical point of view. The arguments themselves, and points brought up are no different from what everyone else who didn't like the game have been saying all along, and I find myself agreeing with him on very little. I've no problem with people disliking ME3, but the highly predictable comments and general cirklejerking attitude of the codex tire me out.

[sf0749]

There was stupidity on both sides in this war. Whenever I think about a reason for why non-humans would invest their lives and their resources into fighting a war for Earth, I can't think of any. I remember what Ashley Williams said in the first game about people looking out for their own interests during a crisis.

And then there's the Crucible. If archaeologists can reconstruct the Antikythera mechanism by computers and run a simulation of how the thing is operated, why can't future archaeologists perform the same task with the Crucible blueprints? The mechanism was broken and was corroded by exposure to the Mediterranean waters over thousands of years, yet we now have an understanding of the basic function of this device. The scientists on Hackett's team had the blueprints and worked with computers that benefited from nearly two hundred years of advances in computer science. It doesn't make sense to me why no one on Hackett's team was able to discern the function of this machine.

I believe that Earth was a dying world by the time the fleet arrived to fight the Reapers. The devastation would be greater with an unknown number of mass accelerator shots missing the Reapers and hitting the planet. The planet's surface I believe was shrouded by a thick cloud of smoke which contained an unknown number of pollutants. I remember reading how the site at the World Trade Centers was toxic to rescue and salvage crews because of the materials present in these buildings. I can't imagine that the smoke in the 23rd century would be less toxic, especially with the industrial ares being the first destroyed. Before the Reaper attacks, Earth's environment was damaged by human activity with the seas being acidic (per Anoleis) and the weather was severe (per the Codex).

[Baconandliver]

Phaedon wrote...
...it's sarcasm.
...
Apparently that guy is set on believing that that is claimed by the developers[when in fact it was only Walters who talked about the partial (and subjective (!), I kid you not)] hard sci-fi nature of the series.

I gathered that it was sarcasm from them, it was more your post I was confused about, in my half-asleep state. Thanks for the clarification.

I guess I just have to disagree that their assessment is unfair. Sure, only Walters called it 'hard sci fi', but he was the lead writer, and it's not like anyone in the Bio camp said "uh... no, no it isn't". That sort of thing coming from the lead writer is a claim from the developers. Short of every Bioware employee calling it hard sci fi, I don't really see what more you could ask for before someone's allowed to call them out on it.

Phaedon wrote...

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

Unless we are reading a different list, Knights of Chalice is the 14th game, with just the previous one being the first 21st century release.

In fact, the average release date of the first list (the one which is not sh*tty according to him) is that of 1994. Yup.

When looking for a post-04 game, once you read the words 'Gold Boxes', you can skip reading the individual names. KotC is on the 3rd row. Anyway, a site devoted to cRPGs, which are few and far between as it is, especially in their classic form, is obviously going to have a lot of old games on its list of favourites, so I don't see what the relevance of pre vs post 04 games is. Not to mention the fact that the list was compiled by one individual, and most people on the site seem to have their own likes and dislikes. Also, as I pointed out, 70.5% of people there seem to highly approve of a game that came out last year. I doubt it's the only one.

Looks like a pretty good RPG forum to me, just less heavily censored than most, with all the pros and cons that entails. It also seems more focused on the classic style of RPG, which I consider a massive plus. I've always considered ME to be more 'choose your own adventure with guns' than RPG anyway. The Playground subforums in particular seem very entertaining, and I'll probably end up registering there, if only to lurk.

Amioran wrote...

No author write anything without a
reference to a theme. This is just your attempt at denying that
something as this happens, but I already provided much enough proof
that's not as you say. Morover the theme I'm talking about it's a well
known one, it's not a theme that is difficult to know (as it can be some
themes in the Ulysses of Joyce). It's even referenced directly in ME
(i.e. they talk about "order vs. chaos" directly in many
sentences).

I'm not denying that the thematic element of order vs. chaos is there, but it is expressed in such a shallow way, in such a lackluster story, that it is irrelevant.

In order for the themes and ideas expressed in a story to have any value at all, the story must first be competently written. ME isn't some surrealist creation where thematic elements mean everything and logical plot cohesion means nothing. Even if it were, as I said before, the themes are explored in a rather shallow way, making it a poor effort by that standard as well.

Amioran wrote...

Have I ever placed ME at the level of academic texts? Of what the hell are you talking about?

I just said that there's a theme behind that the majority of you don't
know at all and so your judgment is flawed from beginning. To judge a
narrative you NEED the full context or your judgement counts nothing.
You can form your opinion, but that's a lot different than
judging.

This is exactly what I mean. You have stated in this thread that in order to understand and critique ME3, one must study "(Kant, Shopenahuer, Nietzsche, Adorno, Heiddeger, Sartre, Ouspensky, Hegel, Csikszentmihalyi etc. etc.)" To require them as a prerequisite is to place them on the same level in terms of depth.

Ignoring even that, your premise is flawed. It is entirely possible to judge ME without having a deep understanding of the theme of order and chaos. As I said before, ME isn't meant to be surrealist. Logical plot cohesion is a must for the type of story ME sets out to be. If it fails in that regard, it has failed, no matter what themes it contains. ME3 fails completely at this, and its story can be fairly judged as a failure.

Modifié par Baconandliver, 24 avril 2012 - 10:21 .

[Divulse456]

Doh. There was narratology in the title. I was expecting narratology. Should have known better.

[streamlock]

Look, I'm not a ME3 apologist by any stretch, but I am curious....

What game/series does the writer actually like? From reading that bit I find it improbably that he/she can enjoy ANY game.

Modifié par streamlock, 24 avril 2012 - 11:13 .

[Han Shot First]

I stopped reading after the author stated that Mass Effect 2 was "more of a third person shooter with stats than a true hybrid."