288 réponses à ce sujet

[Klijpope]

Taboo-XX wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

One **** up does not erase a body of work. It appalls me that some people can use the ending as an excuse to trash the entire working life of two people all while pretending to love the franchise they supposedly ruined from the start. If they're not very good, then you can't think the ME series is very good, so why the hell are you complaining about the ending to a game you didn't like anyway? 

One screw up can negate a lifetime of good works. People remember the bad far more than the good. That's the nature of human psychology. If a pizza place was terrible the last time you went and there a a half-dozen others with the same price, same distance, and a better quality than the last pizza you ate, you'll be hard pressed to give the screw-up shop another chance. It's just how people act. And good experiences usually result in a "what have you done for me lately?" attitude. It's a facet of human behavior. Ask any psych major and you'll find them in agreeance with me on this.

I have education in the field and yes it CAN ruin things for people. I liken it to a blemish though because the first two games are still great. The human mind simply believes that one bad experience ruins all of them.

It's a fallacy.

It might be human nature, but it's not wrong to point out fallacies from time to time. Still trying to hang on to my 'Enlightenment' values. 

As to the writing, ending notwithstanding, it's not bad. It's not often brilliant either, but it's solidly competent, and among the best in the field of videogames. Playing the Witcher 2 right now, and while giving it a pass on many things because it's a translation I still find the narrative opaque and inaccessible, and the choices meagre. It has been held up as superior to BW games by many posters, but I personally can't see it. W2 has it's own qualities, and I'm interested to see how some of the choices pan out, but, even with the bad ending, the ME franchise is state of the art in the interactive fiction field.

That we can all see it can be better just shows how recently videogames started taking narrative seriously.

But even then, the writing in ME can be held up to a lot of stuff we see on our screens, both small and big. There's not a great deal of quotable dialogue in ME ("You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it" being the best example), but the story and characters really get under our skin and we've been satisfied up till the last 10 minutes.

We can compare the writing in ME to things in other fields, but we should understand it's an aspiration to have game writing on a par with the best screen writing and novels. We should be comparing it to other games that tell stories too, and in this field ME as a whole has few competitors.

But I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy. 

[ahandsomeshark]

Kunari801 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Also I don't really see the ME3 as a vanguard in terms of interactive fiction. My issue with ME3 is that it felt way less interactive and more cinematic than the previous games. I would say it's an example of how not to do interactive fiction. I don't think the hybrid they were going for worked at all.

No, ME1 was more of the vanguard.  At least it was a new high in the RPG space with the great story, good cinematics, voice over work, and game world.  Sure we look at it now and snicker at the lower poly and lower res textures, but it blew me out of the water.   ME2 similarly did too, sure I missed some of the RPG elements removed but it was still a great game.  ME3 also continued that trend right until the star-brat.  

I really think they tried to do TOO much in ME3 and wish they had decided to make it into two-parts.  I certainly would no thave minded if they announced that they were going to pull a "Deathly Hallows" and make ME3 into two games.   Could have ended as a cliffhanger at the Geth/Quarian war.   Published a DLC or two then March 2013 launched ME4 to complete the war. 

agreed about trying to do too much in ME3, though I don't think they would have needed to split it into two games. I think they tried to be interactive while still having the huge cinematic qualities of less interactive titles. Which doesn't work because those qualities usually work when there is a narrative emotion behind them, and by forcing an emotion onto the player you're removing the role part of the role playing aspect. So IMO you need to focus on one or the other. cut scenes, like the best example I can think of being the scene that plays after Freedoms Progress when you're introduced to the SR-2, are fine, but having me keep my controller in my hand just so I can pick from two dialogue options that end up being the same, or even worse just so I can press a button and be presented with no choice in the dialogue, just annoys me. 

Just like the combat and all of MP, yes they're decent compared to previous games (or no MP) but they're not on the level of games that are entirely MP and combat focused. And they're certainly not going to be the reason I buy a ME game, because there are games that do them better, so why waste valuable disc space and development time that could have gone to things that will make me buy a Bioware game? (like side missions and squad mates and etc).

Modifié par ahandsomeshark, 03 mai 2012 - 07:36 .

[ahandsomeshark]

I think we can hold up ME as a whole but I think ME3 falls short of the first two games in terms of writing. Not just because of the ending but in the way the plot and characters are handled as a whole. I felt like there was too much dividing into black and white morality, too many "plot forced" obstacles

[Klijpope]

Kunari801 wrote...
I really think they tried to do TOO much in ME3 and wish they had decided to make it into two-parts.  I certainly would no thave minded if they announced that they were going to pull a "Deathly Hallows" and make ME3 into two games.   Could have ended as a cliffhanger at the Geth/Quarian war.   Published a DLC or two then March 2013 launched ME4 to complete the war. 

You have a good point, but then we head into George RR Martin territory, and then the franchise may never end...

Actually, GRRM is a good comparison to this, as he's had similar (if not identical) interactions with his fanbase. He's in a no win situation regarding his fans and his ending, if he even ever gets to it.

Personally, I think not doing Arrival and doing something different would have helped, something that really did tie in to the plot of the third game. Arrival is just an unfortunate dead end.

[Lawrence0294]

Klijpope wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
I really think they tried to do TOO much in ME3 and wish they had decided to make it into two-parts.  I certainly would no thave minded if they announced that they were going to pull a "Deathly Hallows" and make ME3 into two games.   Could have ended as a cliffhanger at the Geth/Quarian war.   Published a DLC or two then March 2013 launched ME4 to complete the war. 

You have a good point, but then we head into George RR Martin territory, and then the franchise may never end...

Actually, GRRM is a good comparison to this, as he's had similar (if not identical) interactions with his fanbase. He's in a no win situation regarding his fans and his ending, if he even ever gets to it.

Personally, I think not doing Arrival and doing something different would have helped, something that really did tie in to the plot of the third game. Arrival is just an unfortunate dead end.

What do you mean when Arrival is a dead end?

[Kunari801]

kratos0294 wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
I really think they tried to do TOO much in ME3 and wish they had decided to make it into two-parts.  I certainly would no thave minded if they announced that they were going to pull a "Deathly Hallows" and make ME3 into two games.   Could have ended as a cliffhanger at the Geth/Quarian war.   Published a DLC or two then March 2013 launched ME4 to complete the war. 

You have a good point, but then we head into George RR Martin territory, and then the franchise may never end...

Actually, GRRM is a good comparison to this, as he's had similar (if not identical) interactions with his fanbase. He's in a no win situation regarding his fans and his ending, if he even ever gets to it.

Personally, I think not doing Arrival and doing something different would have helped, something that really did tie in to the plot of the third game. Arrival is just an unfortunate dead end.

What do you mean when Arrival is a dead end?  

I picked up Arrival over the weekend, it's not a bad DLC but it doesn't really set the stage for ME3.  I thought it'd tell me why Shepard was on Earth and who James was, it does neither.   I wouldn't say it was a dead-end just not a proper intro. They could have used it to hint at the Crucible and introduce James.  

Klijpope, I don't think splitting up ME3 into two games would have put it into GRRM territory.  Not if they spent the time really fleshing out the story with no auto-dialog, more branching campaign missed based on previous decisions, etc.  It would have spurr'd replayability to see the different missions and maybe got some new players to buy, at least, ME2 if not both ME1 and 2.  

Hopefully they would of had time to make a better second half as well.  Expand the compaign to more plants, more side quests on the other planets (I would have liked to see the Hanar homeworld), greatly expanded Earth missions, and a better ending.  (assumes the ending were rushed" which is not been proven) 

[Taboo]

 You make a good point about the beginning.

I for one filled in the gaps with whatever information was said. It's a narrative oversight and can be forgiven. I have yet to see a trilogy seemlessly blend together. At some point you have to make an inference.

Take James Vega, I really didn't have a problem with him (Although I was terrified when they announced his VO). Vega turned out to be a pretty cool guy. Not very deep but a pretty cool guy. His is obviously there to pander to newer players who didn't have attachments to other characters. I would have preferred someone like Miranda (biased here) or Jack. They were far far more interesting than generic soldier number one but it IS a marketing technique.

I've seen people complain about Liara being a little to friendly but I must have been oblivious to this because I really didn't care about what she had to say most of the time.

The transition was ugly and perhaps they can release soemthing in the EC to bridge the games better.....

I don't know.

[LePetitRobot]

OP, I think you miss the point of Andy Warhol's films. Surely as an artist he was experimenting with the medium, making installations (or just having a laugh while getting rich and famous). Nobody's watching his films in the way they'd watch a hitchcock, a Kubrick, a Spielberg etc.
So Empire is very long and nothing much happens. It's not relevant to filmmaking as we know it, so what does it matter? 
Robert Rauschenberg made "white" paintings. Saying they're not a good as a Turner or a Monet is pointless. John Cage's 4'33" is an interesting piece of sonic art, but to say you prefer Mozart or the Beatles, while reasonable, would also miss the point.

I'm not even a Warhol admirer, and I dislike most modern conceptual art.
I just found it strange that your post came out hating an artist - one who said "art is anything you can get away with" - for making "bad films", to illustrate the absolutely valid point that unique does not equate to brilliant.



 

Modifié par LePetitRobo, 04 mai 2012 - 12:10 .

[Taboo]

LePetitRobo wrote...

OP, I think you miss the point of Andy Warhol's films. Surely as an artist he was experimenting with the medium, making installations (or just having a laugh while getting rich and famous). Nobody's watching his films in the way they'd watch a hitchcock, a Kubrick, a Spielberg etc. So Empire is very long and nothing much happens. It's not relevant to filmmaking as we know it, so what does it matter? 
Robert Rauschenberg made "white" paintings. Saying they're not a good as a Turner or a Monet is pointless. John Cage's 4'33" is an interesting piece of sonic art, but to say you prefer Mozart or the Beatles, while reasonable, would also miss the point.

I'm not even a Warhol admirer, and I dislike most modern conceptual art.
I just found it strange that your post came out hating an artist - one who said "art is anything you can get away with" - for making "bad films", to illustrate the absolutely valid point that unique does not equate to brilliant.

 

That isn't the point of the post. It's the excuse people use to defend it. I don't like Warhol's films but have nothing against the man. It's the EXCUSE that's the problem.

[Aquilas]

 
@Klijpope

Re-read my post. I'm most specifically talking about the ME3 ending. When I say the ending seems as if it was written by amateurs vs. pros who've been custodians of ME3 lore for five years, that's exactly, precisely what I mean. The ME3 ending. Period. Dot.

You say people can't damn an entire body of work based on one failure. I agree. So by your own "logic," you can't assume--which is what you do, assume--that I dislike the entire ME series based on ME3's ending. I played ME 12 times and ME2, 14. The rest of the series is fabulous. Most of ME3 is very good, though it has problems other than the ending. Here's a great review; the writer's analysis quite clearly shows that ME3 deserved about an 8/10 overall:

Mass Effect 3--Don't Fear the Reapers

So overall, ME3 is a solid success. The ME3 ending is anything but.

You go on to compare the ME series as a body of fiction to other video games and movies, and you relate your reactions to weak or failed endings. Great stuff, but irrelevant to my post. Re-read it. Again. I'm speaking about ME3's ending as a capstone to the ME series, the self-contained body of work. Not ME as an example of interactive fiction, electronic storytelling, or anything else. The ME3 ending. Period. Dot.

You admit the ending was hamfisted. We agree.

As for name-calling, I'm characterizing the nature of the work itself. When I mention Hudson's and Walters' capabilities, I'm using the ME3 ending as evidence. I'm not saying they failed throughout the ME series or in any other body of work. I'm not calling them stupid dumbasses or anything of the kind. Again, you call the ending hamfisted. If I'm name-calling, then so are you.

So what I find humorous (though not enough to make me laugh, by any means) is your failure to focus on what I wrote. If you had focused on the ending and its specific relationship to the ME series, then good on ya. You did not.

P.S. I'm late getting back to this because I don't check the forums frequently anymore, and I won't until the EC is released.

Modifié par Aquilas, 12 mai 2012 - 02:47 .

[Torxen]

Bump.

[D24O]

Let the dead rest.

[Kel Riever]

OP: well said.

But again, the first mistake comes from your selection of choices not mattering one bit (including after DLC)...the point of a video RPG over a book or movie. Yeah, once we look at each choice of endings, we can break them down into story critique style. But the boat was missed before you even get to literary critique #1, because the writer should have asked himself what the difference between a one ending story and a multi ending rpg was.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Torxen wrote...

Bump.

Rofl talk about Necromancing.