288 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Kunari801 wrote...

I think we have enough Why threads... Cautionary tale sounds good.

Then a tale of hubris it will be.

The fall of the "age of the auteur" in Hollywood is a good example.........

[EnvyTB075]

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.

[Taboo]

I'll tell you why that's a bad idea tomorrow.

[Atakuma]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.

It wasn't Joss's choice to have the show end where it did, and the movie was a way of giving the story a proper ending. The two situations are not comparable.

Modifié par Atakuma, 03 mai 2012 - 01:37 .

[Taboo]

Atakuma wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.

It wasn't Joss's choice to have the show end where it did, and the movie was a way of giving the story a proper ending. The two situations are not comparable.

No but an overbearing production company can seriously hamper things.

Then they have to deal with the fans.

[Atakuma]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.

It wasn't Joss's choice to have the show end where it did, and the movie was a way of giving the story a proper ending. The two situations are not comparable.

No but an overbearing production company can seriously hamper things.

Then they have to deal with the fans.

That is a seperate issue. Bioware is responsible for the ending, not EA.

[Aquilas]

The ending is crude, amateurish, and hamfisted. Hudson and Walters wanted to make sure that if we hadn't figured out by the last five minutes of ME3 that Shepard's choices have always been about sacrifice and loss, then for damn sure we'd get it.

Yes, they faced a release deadline and fiscal constraints. Having said that, it's clear neither of them are capable enough or sophisticated enough to have succeeded within the parameters given. Their mechanic is crude: Star-jar says, "Shepard, to win you have to sacrifice and lose. So pick A, B, or C...oops...Red, Green, or Blue, and you'll die regardless. If you choose Red, you'll kill a bunch of your allies; if you choose Green, you'll rob all life in the galaxy of its identity (but Joker and EDI will hug), and if you choose Blue, you'll become what you hate. You say your previous choices don't matter? You say your Paragon or Renegade status don't matter? Of course they do! Just look at your EMS score! Oh, you'll destroy all the mass relays too, just because I can make it happen. So there."

Now, they're going to take a couple of months to "clarify" this mechanic by rolling the turd in glitter--i.e., magic space dust--and place it all in context for us. Problem is, we all understand better than they do, obviously, exactly what the ME3 context is. It seems as if amateurs wrote the ending, rather than pros who'd been custodians of the ME lore for five years.

BioWare wasn't trying to insult us per se, though they may have thought we wouldn't be paying attention closely. When Hudson says BioWare worked hard to give us their best, he's telling the truth. I'm sure his team did their best, right up until the end. Hudson's best, however, is hamfisted. Simply put, his best isn't very good. He knows it, and Walters knows his best is inadequate too. Their silence over the last two months speaks volumes.

Modifié par Aquilas, 03 mai 2012 - 01:42 .

[Taboo]

Aquilas wrote...

The ending is crude, amateurish, and hamfisted. Hudson and Walters wanted to make sure that if we hadn't figured out by the last five minutes of ME3 that Shepard's choices have always been about sacrifice and loss, then for damn sure we'd get it.

Yes, they faced a release deadline and fiscal constraints. Having said that, it's clear neither of them are capable enough or sophisticated enough to have succeeded within the parameters given. Their mechanic is crude: Star-jar says, "Shepard, to win you have to sacrifice and lose. So pick A, B, or C...oops...Red, Green, or Blue, and you'll die regardless. If you choose Red, you'll kill a bunch of your allies; if you choose Green, you'll rob all life in the galaxy of its identity (but Joker and EDI will hug), and if you choose Blue, you'll become what you hate. You say your previous choices don't matter? You say your Paragon or Renegade status don't matter? Of course they do! Just look at your EMS score! Oh, you'll destroy all the mass relays too, just because I can make it happen. So there."

Now, they're going to take a couple of months to "clarify" this mechanic by rolling the turd in glitter--i.e., magic space dust--and place it all in context for us. Problem is, we all understand better than they do, obviously, exactly what the ME3 context is. It seems as if amateurs wrote the ending, rather than pros who'd been custodians of the ME lore for five years.

BioWare wasn't trying to insult us per se, though they may have thought we wouldn't be paying attention closely. When Hudson says BioWare worked hard to give us their best, he's telling the truth. I'm sure his team did their best, right up until the end. Hudson's best, however, is hamfisted. Simply put, his best isn't very good. He knows it, and Walters knows his best is inadequate too. Their silence over the last two months speaks volumes.

One person can unravel everything..........everything.

Tomorrow.........

[KitaSaturnyne]

Dammit, I wish I could articulate my thoughts this well. Without going into detail, my arguments for being unsatisfied with it (not angry, heartbroken, etc.) was that it:

- Invalidated everything Shepard had been fighting for since the first game
- Lost narrative focus by changing the central conflict of the story from destroying the Reapers to solving an apparently inevitable technological singularity. ("You mean the one happening around me RIGHT NOW? That one?")
- Was too short for the end to a trilogy.

My stance, as far as the Starchild went was that if he was going to be introduced, one of two things need to happen: Either we get to spend a lot more time with him to justify him as a character, or he gets excised completely and we can all spam our Destroy endings in relative peace.

That's all I've ever been able to say. Congrats to you OP, for such consistently well thought out posts. I'm always interested to see other people's point of view on things like this.

In your opinion, what would have made for a more effective narrative in order to conclude this trilogy?

[EnvyTB075]

Atakuma wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.

It wasn't Joss's choice to have the show end where it did, and the movie was a way of giving the story a proper ending. The two situations are not comparable.

No but an overbearing production company can seriously hamper things.

Then they have to deal with the fans.

That is a seperate issue. Bioware is responsible for the ending, not EA.

Either way, it just shows if you make enough noise about something, something will eventually happen.

[Oni Changas]

Qutayba wrote...

When BioWare is talking about artistic integrity, they're not saying they want to be avant-garde. They wanted the ending to enigmatic, but not opaque. It should still have enough information for the player.

They failed on many levels, and it was a blunder. I don't think there was any intention to be insulting on their part. That doesn't mean you can't be insulted by the fact that they didn't think about it as carefully and critically as other parts of the game show they are capable of doing. But I really don't think they were trying to pull an Andy Warhol.

With such quotes as "too video gamey," or "we wanted something unconventional" and "Mass Effect 3 is going to do away with cliches" I feel as if they were. Different for the sake of different lacks soul. It lacks passion. When you compare Norweigian black metal of 1993 to black metal today or (radio/mainstream) rap of '93 to today's rap, the older stuff was made for a reason. There was a deep and strong underlying message back then. Now, it's for the lulz in most cases. There's no consensus on a big bad "man" to go against these days. The same could almost be said of many game developers, such as EA themselves.

[Oni Changas]

*hump bump*

[eddieoctane]

OniTYME wrote...

Qutayba wrote...

When BioWare is talking about artistic integrity, they're not saying they want to be avant-garde. They wanted the ending to enigmatic, but not opaque. It should still have enough information for the player.

They failed on many levels, and it was a blunder. I don't think there was any intention to be insulting on their part. That doesn't mean you can't be insulted by the fact that they didn't think about it as carefully and critically as other parts of the game show they are capable of doing. But I really don't think they were trying to pull an Andy Warhol.

With such quotes as "too video gamey," or "we wanted something unconventional" and "Mass Effect 3 is going to do away with cliches" I feel as if they were. Different for the sake of different lacks soul. It lacks passion. When you compare Norweigian black metal of 1993 to black metal today or (radio/mainstream) rap of '93 to today's rap, the older stuff was made for a reason. There was a deep and strong underlying message back then. Now, it's for the lulz in most cases. There's no consensus on a big bad "man" to go against these days. The same could almost be said of many game developers, such as EA themselves.

[MaxRage]

The ME3 ending was simply lazy... and their excuse for it... even more lazy.

Modifié par MaxRage, 03 mai 2012 - 03:06 .

[Lawrence0294]

Do you think they are going to make a trailer for the EC ?

[oneyedjohn]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

The ending is crude, amateurish, and hamfisted. Hudson and Walters wanted to make sure that if we hadn't figured out by the last five minutes of ME3 that Shepard's choices have always been about sacrifice and loss, then for damn sure we'd get it.

Yes, they faced a release deadline and fiscal constraints. Having said that, it's clear neither of them are capable enough or sophisticated enough to have succeeded within the parameters given. Their mechanic is crude: Star-jar says, "Shepard, to win you have to sacrifice and lose. So pick A, B, or C...oops...Red, Green, or Blue, and you'll die regardless. If you choose Red, you'll kill a bunch of your allies; if you choose Green, you'll rob all life in the galaxy of its identity (but Joker and EDI will hug), and if you choose Blue, you'll become what you hate. You say your previous choices don't matter? You say your Paragon or Renegade status don't matter? Of course they do! Just look at your EMS score! Oh, you'll destroy all the mass relays too, just because I can make it happen. So there."

Now, they're going to take a couple of months to "clarify" this mechanic by rolling the turd in glitter--i.e., magic space dust--and place it all in context for us. Problem is, we all understand better than they do, obviously, exactly what the ME3 context is. It seems as if amateurs wrote the ending, rather than pros who'd been custodians of the ME lore for five years.

BioWare wasn't trying to insult us per se, though they may have thought we wouldn't be paying attention closely. When Hudson says BioWare worked hard to give us their best, he's telling the truth. I'm sure his team did their best, right up until the end. Hudson's best, however, is hamfisted. Simply put, his best isn't very good. He knows it, and Walters knows his best is inadequate too. Their silence over the last two months speaks volumes.

One person can unravel everything..........everything.

Tomorrow.........

Heaven's Gate?

[Wabajakka]

 You went to that extent just to explain the writers and audiences rights? That it insults our intelligence? lol. <_< 

Ok, I agree, always did as should've most people with the way this game ended and that's been already expressed by many...

But, honestly these things should be a given and not be the center of discussion right now. We're people, we have rights, integrity, intelligence, we conflict etc... Sure, but maybe some don't believe the same thing, you want to convince them, but who cares? Leave them be, let them think what they will. Isn't that your point anyway? 

Now lets keep being active and get to helping BW fix this mess and let them do what they will with our feedback, not explain why complaining about something is within our rights and why something else is within the writers rights. **** that. Explaining a problem with the existing problem does not solve the problem lmao it does nothing. This thread is about as useful as a blank troll thread. Not to be mean, but it's true.

No artistic example is needed to express some simple concept in hopes of making you look like you're helping people justify their feeling of being insulted, in fact, you're insulting their inteligence by implying any of your explinations are necessary to them or to anyone to help realize a problem within the existing problem.

Problemception! 

Modifié par Orange Tee, 03 mai 2012 - 06:24 .

[die-yng]

Orange Tee wrote...

 You went to that extent just to explain the writers and audiences rights? That it insults our intelligence? lol. <_< 

Ok, I agree, always did as should've most people with the way this game ended and that's been already expressed by many...

But, honestly these things should be a given and not be the center of discussion right now. We're people, we have rights, integrity, intelligence, we conflict etc... Sure, but maybe some don't believe the same thing, you want to convince them, but who cares? Leave them be, let them think what they will. Isn't that your point anyway? 

Now lets keep being active and get to helping BW fix this mess and let them do what they will with our feedback, not explain why complaining about something is within our rights and why something else is within the writers rights. **** that. Explaining a problem with the existing problem does not solve the problem lmao it does nothing. This thread is about as useful as a blank troll thread. Not to be mean, but it's true.

No artistic example is needed to express some simple concept in hopes of making you look like you're helping people justify their feeling of being insulted, in fact, you're insulting their inteligence by implying any of your explinations are necessary to them or to anyone to help realize a problem within the existing problem.

Problemception! 

You fail to see, that it is a difference, whether you know you have the right to something, or if everybody agrees you have that right.
So far lots of people keep telling the fans that they absolutely don't  have a right to complain and the OP pretty much answered only to those people and he did it well.

Sure we've got the right to be angry about the ending and complain, but as long as journalists. game developers and Bioware tell us: "No, you don't" you can't really say a thread like this is a  troll thread.

So far BW is acting very hamfisted in its response to fans and when the ec is nothing more but what they are saying right now, then it's gonna adress practically none of the issues the fans have.

I think in a way it is helping BW to fix this mess, if we keep on telling them that their defences and explanations are not adequate, they still have time to get it right and they damn well should.

[nitefyre410]

oneyedjohn wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

The ending is crude, amateurish, and hamfisted. Hudson and Walters wanted to make sure that if we hadn't figured out by the last five minutes of ME3 that Shepard's choices have always been about sacrifice and loss, then for damn sure we'd get it.

Yes, they faced a release deadline and fiscal constraints. Having said that, it's clear neither of them are capable enough or sophisticated enough to have succeeded within the parameters given. Their mechanic is crude: Star-jar says, "Shepard, to win you have to sacrifice and lose. So pick A, B, or C...oops...Red, Green, or Blue, and you'll die regardless. If you choose Red, you'll kill a bunch of your allies; if you choose Green, you'll rob all life in the galaxy of its identity (but Joker and EDI will hug), and if you choose Blue, you'll become what you hate. You say your previous choices don't matter? You say your Paragon or Renegade status don't matter? Of course they do! Just look at your EMS score! Oh, you'll destroy all the mass relays too, just because I can make it happen. So there."

Now, they're going to take a couple of months to "clarify" this mechanic by rolling the turd in glitter--i.e., magic space dust--and place it all in context for us. Problem is, we all understand better than they do, obviously, exactly what the ME3 context is. It seems as if amateurs wrote the ending, rather than pros who'd been custodians of the ME lore for five years.

BioWare wasn't trying to insult us per se, though they may have thought we wouldn't be paying attention closely. When Hudson says BioWare worked hard to give us their best, he's telling the truth. I'm sure his team did their best, right up until the end. Hudson's best, however, is hamfisted. Simply put, his best isn't very good. He knows it, and Walters knows his best is inadequate too. Their silence over the last two months speaks volumes.

One person can unravel everything..........everything.

Tomorrow.........

Heaven's Gate?

  

Can't do a cautionary tale with out talking about  Heaven's Gate.. 

[Kunari801]

eddieoctane wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

I want to be able to kill the Reapers and still have the Geth & EDI live, even if I had to sacrifice Shepard.  My paragon Shepard would want that.... 

...Edit: Just realized I switch from "Shepard" use "my".  Does that tell you how connected we got to these characters BW?

1: That's attainable through "clarification". But just saving them and leaving the galaxy at large boned wouldn't appease many people.

2: We are all that connected to the characters. I have to make a conscious effort to say "Shepard" and "the crew" instead of "me" and "my team" all the time. I think a lot of us

No matter what happens, I just want to see the relays remain intact. Beliving the galaxy is somehow better off without the "influence of Reaper technology" just shows how little BioWare's writing staff understands about psychology and engineering. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Developing new tech is not going to happen, not when large pieces of the relays remain, the tech is known to work, and reengineering them is known to be possible. All they did was take the relays away for long enough for those without direct access to agriculture to starve, only for us to rebuild them alter. Terrible logic.

1:  I hope they do expand the RBG ending(s?) to help distinguish them and provide more variety/meaningful endings. that would fit more of our Shepards. 

2:  I know I'm not alone in that connection.  As much of a fan as I am on ME, I never realized HOW connected I had become,  I even prepared myself for my Shepard to die in ME3, but never imagined that the ME Universe would basically get wiped out at the end and that hit me harder than I expected.  

I too want to know the Relays survive / rebuilt / reactivated.  As much as I was fighting for myself and my crew, I was also fighting to save the ME universe as we knew it, not some 10k years in the future one of Stargazer.  Sure the Relays and Citadel were a trap, but we've sprung the trap and survived, killed the trap builders, and should be able to reap the rewards (no pun intended), 

[Kunari801]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.  

I know, I'm one of them.  I'm not exclusive in my fandom.  

[pistolols]

Jenonax wrote...

I thought that had been the whole point of the 1 and 2. Succeeding against impossible odds.

If you mean that Shepard succeeds against impossible odds, that has never been my take on the series at all. It is interesting to me if that has been yours. To me, Shepard has always been the Hero that is simply in the right place, at the right time. If you really think about it, the Protheans are the true heroes of ME1. Shepard is just a soldier en route to Eden Prime for a basic mission when everything changes. Saren has attacked, Shepard encounters the beacon and the rest is history. Then in ME2.. is it not Cerberus and the Illusive Man that ultimately should get the credit for stopping the Collectors?  It would not have been possible had they not 1)resurrected Shepard from death via synthetic synthesis and 2) Guided him every step of the way.

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Reapers were originally supposed to be beyond our comprehension, something that could not be readily understood, something that could not easily be defeated.

lol you sound like someone that is indoctrinated.  Very important to keep in mind that it is the reapers themselves (Sovereign) that tell us they are beyond our comprehension.  That's because they're arrogant and they want you to be in awe of them.  Viewing the reapers with "superstitious awe" is one of the main mechanics of becoming indoctrinated as it is described in the Codex.  It was never my assumption that the reapers would really turn out to be beyond my comprehension.  This is just another major misconception you and many others are suffering from.

Modifié par pistolols, 03 mai 2012 - 02:27 .

[Jenonax]

pistolols wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I thought that had been the whole point of the 1 and 2. Succeeding against impossible odds.

If you mean that Shepard succeeds against impossible odds, that has never been my take on the series at all. It is interesting to me if that has been yours. To me, Shepard has always been the Hero that is simply in the right place, at the right time. If you really think about it, the Protheans are the true heroes of ME1. Shepard is just a soldier en route to Eden Prime for a basic mission when everything changes. Saren has attacked, Shepard encounters the beacon and the rest is history. Then in ME2.. is it not Cerberus and the Illusive Man that ultimately should get the credit for stopping the Collectors?  It would not have been possible had they not 1)resurrected Shepard from death via synthetic synthesis and 2) Guided him every step of the way.

I never said it was just Shepard who was succeeding against impossible odds.  Shepard could never have done it alone, and he doesn't.  Very rarely in literature does a hero do things alone, very rarely is he capable of doing so.  United we stand in the Mass Effect Universe.  Shepard is the hero because he unites people, because he inspires people, because people are willing to believe they can do the impossible because he stands by their side.  To say that he is simply a man in the right place at the right time is simplistic and does Shepard a real disservice.  No one else could have united the galaxy, and no one else would have tried.

[Taboo]

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

[humes spork]

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

As I've brought up round these parts before, the problem with that is BW made the conscious decision to merely use Lovecraftian themes to introduce the Reapers and establish the trilogy's dramatic question. It, even in the context of ME1 itself, was clearly not intended to be a long-running theme attached to the Reapers. Or, if it was, the writers of ME1 had a very poor understanding of Lovecraftian horror.

Having Sovereign directly engage the protagonists, and act directly in the game's climax, already represented a fundamental break from the thematic tenets of Lovecraftian horror that rendered it narratively unsustainable.