626 réponses à ce sujet

[guacamayus]

I agree with his definition of synthesis, that's how I understood that part as well. However he is doing what many internet critics have done to date, the try to focus their review on 'the bigger picture' because he knows that going into too much detail is going to show all the game's flaws, that are many specially during priority: earth.

To me his review feels like saying 'hey, the ending may feel rushed and poorly implemented, but it doesn't matter since the whole game is an ending...' cmon, really?

[Myrmedus]

Xellith wrote...

If nobody can "get" your art - then you failed hard as an artist.

Word.

The purpose of art is to get a profound message across in an ordinary format so digestible by your average person. If your average person isn't getting it, you screwed up.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 12 mai 2012 - 12:34 .

[Myrmedus]

Hackulator wrote...

I 100% agree with this sentiment, the game was 1 big wrap-up, which is what the third installment of a trilogy is supposed to be.

Sure, definitely.

However, you'd think with 34 hours of wrap-up they'd actually successfully, well, wrap it up. How do you leave so many plotholes, inconsistencies and loose ends when you've have 34 hours to conclude something?

Modifié par Myrmedus, 12 mai 2012 - 12:37 .

[Torrible]

guacamayus wrote...

I agree with his definition of synthesis, that's how I understood that part as well. However he is doing what many internet critics have done to date, the try to focus their review on 'the bigger picture' because he knows that going into too much detail is going to show all the game's flaws, that are many specially during priority: earth.

To me his review feels like saying 'hey, the ending may feel rushed and poorly implemented, but it doesn't matter since the whole game is an ending...' cmon, really?

It's all about differences in perception. 

http://www.myersbrig...r-intuition.asp 
http://users.trytel....ne-med/s-n.html 

Those who prefer Sensing (S), take in information through their five senses. Those who prefer iNtuiting, of course use their five senses to take in information, but they make the added jump and use a sixth sense to see all the possibilities or meaning of the information.

Intuitors tend to be more abstract and Sensors tend to be more concrete in their thought. It is not that Intuitors are smarter than Sensors; but often Intuitors will do better on IQ tests since they were designed by Intuitors.

The Intuitors are interested in the "big picture," while the Sensors want the details. Suppose a couple is planning a vacation. The Intuitor is talking about a vacation that will renew the spirit and be an enriching experience. The Sensor is demanding, "But where are you planning for us to go?" The Sensors want the details. The Intuitors are looking for a vision and will fill in the details "maybe" some time later.

Best estimates are that there are about 75% Sensors and 25% Intuitors in the general population.

Modifié par Torrible, 12 mai 2012 - 12:40 .

[Robhuzz]

Xellith wrote...

If nobody can "get" your art - then you failed hard as an artist.

Lol, they just can't keep from shooting themselves in the proverbial PR foot can they? Yet another of the 'they just didn't get it' statements defending the ending. *Sigh* EC will be interesting if they're taking this approach. 

Everything coming from BioWare is BioWare contradicting themselves. The moment they announced the EC they acknowledged the ending was flawed, whether they'll admit it or not. If I write a book with an ending that nobody understands and personally think it's clear enough, I wouldn't release some kind of clarification. Since if I do not see the problem, I cannot do anything to solve it.

BioWare says they're proud of the ending (doubtful there are many devs at BioWare who share this statement) and nothing is wrong with it but at the same time they plan to release 'clarification'. If they're so certain the ending is good and clear, why release the clarification at all? Because in order to solve a problem you must first acknowledge said problem...

Modifié par Robhuzz, 12 mai 2012 - 12:48 .

[TMA LIVE]

Robhuzz wrote...

Xellith wrote...

If nobody can "get" your art - then you failed hard as an artist.

But I did get it.

Saying nobody is generalizing.

Besides, I think the majority get the ending. It's just a matter of not liking it.

[FOX216BC]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

Point 3 makes sense and yet it makes nosens at all.
Yes throughout ME3 we get closure, the genophage gets cured or the Krogan are betrayed.
The war between the Quarians and the geth ended...
Hell even ME2 had some closure if you played LOTSB.

Still the final moments of ME3 are so out of place it manages to turn all that closure along with all the rest that
Shepard achieved worthless.
Especially the synthesis ending.

[guacamayus]

Torrible wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

I agree with his definition of synthesis, that's how I understood that part as well. However he is doing what many internet critics have done to date, the try to focus their review on 'the bigger picture' because he knows that going into too much detail is going to show all the game's flaws, that are many specially during priority: earth.

To me his review feels like saying 'hey, the ending may feel rushed and poorly implemented, but it doesn't matter since the whole game is an ending...' cmon, really?

It's all about differences in perception. 

http://www.myersbrig...r-intuition.asp 
http://users.trytel....ne-med/s-n.html 

Those who prefer Sensing (S), take in information through their five senses. Those who prefer iNtuiting, of course use their five senses to take in information, but they make the added jump and use a sixth sense to see all the possibilities or meaning of the information.

Intuitors tend to be more abstract and Sensors tend to be more concrete in their thought. It is not that Intuitors are smarter than Sensors; but often Intuitors will do better on IQ tests since they were designed by Intuitors.

The Intuitors are interested in the "big picture," while the Sensors want the details. Suppose a couple is planning a vacation. The Intuitor is talking about a vacation that will renew the spirit and be an enriching experience. The Sensor is demanding, "But where are you planning for us to go?" The Sensors want the details. The Intuitors are looking for a vision and will fill in the details "maybe" some time later.

Best estimates are that there are about 75% Sensors and 25% Intuitors in the general population.

I disagree, to me it was a simplistic way to review the game again without actually talking about its problems. Yes, ME3 warps up many things in the process and I think almost everyone can agree on that but that simply doesn't excuse the amount of cut content or the way they handled priority: earth.

[Robhuzz]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Xellith wrote...

If nobody can "get" your art - then you failed hard as an artist.

But I did get it.

Saying nobody is generalizing.

Besides, I think the majority get the ending. It's just a matter of not liking it.

I think the guy means the supposed 'art' in the ending. The majority understands perfectly well there's no such thing as art in the ME3 ending but it's just rushed garbage taken from other games like deus ex. The smug people who defend the ending with the art argument however, try to paint the ending haters as people who aren't smart enough to see that art and thus cannot appreciate the ending.

BS argument if I ever heard one:blink:

[The Angry One]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Xellith wrote...

If nobody can "get" your art - then you failed hard as an artist.

But I did get it.

Saying nobody is generalizing.

Besides, I think the majority get the ending. It's just a matter of not liking it.

What you "got" isn't what they intended*, this is smoke and mirrors, and you're not helping.

*Unless they intended for us to manufacture endings in our heads, which given Walters' attitude is possible.

[Stigweird85]

Malchat wrote...

bigstig wrote...

This is mainly directed at @Polaris but anyone can answer. I must ask, at this stage is there anything(realistically) that Bioware can do to please you?

Yes: level with me.

Deny or acknowledge that the ending may be flawed and genuinely explain the artistic choices in a dialogue - no weasel wording, no condenscension, no hiding behind 75 perfect reviews, pundit posturing, semantic games, user statistics, and meaningless phrases - just a straightforward explanation from the people who actually authored these choices.

I never asked for DLC or wholesale game changes - I just wanted Bioware to appreciate my disappointment and tell me why it came out the way it did. And if I'm wrong in my perspective, just grow a pair and say it to my face instead of having a handful of beleagured pro-ender fans fighting the good fight.

That's why I became active on BSN on Twitter... to get some answers straight from the source. Instead I got... well, you know the rest.

Fair enough, It is a fair request and not demanding of anything however I doubt you will ever get it. 

No company will ever admit fault at least not directly. They may imply it, and even do things to correct it but they will never admit it. Admitting fault is admitting liability, admitting liability leaves them open to all sorts of things- I imagine more than than a few people who join a class action suit against Bioware/EA should the opportunity present itself.

On a PR stand point, it is typical by the book selling, highlight the positives, hide the negatives. It's universal.

[Mordanticus]

Tetris Block 1: Tetris Block 2..
Tetris Block 2: Tetris Block 1..
Tetris Block 1: Well, TB2, we've come a long way haven't we..
Tetris Block 2: You know you never would have gotten this far without me, TB1..

So.. We are going to compare one of the greatest science fiction franchises in video game history to Tetris are we?? Really?? I don't know about you, but I never played any game to lose.. Regardless of the game's mechanics, I still played to win..

Mass Effect can't even remotely be compared to Tetris, sir.. Mass Effect 3's ending never had to be the failure it turned into.. Bioware may very well have intended it to be the end of Shepard's story, but they kind of turned their backs on their own game concept.. Choice.. Our choices were supposed to be what mattered the most.. They not only shot themselves in the foot with this ending, they loaded up the clip and let fly into our feet as well..

The comparison made by the author of this article leaves me shaking my head in disbelief.. I was never emotionally invested in the survival of falling Tetris blocks, but I definitely was with my ME crew.. I actually care if my Shepard lives.. I actually care about knowing which of my crew survives the ground assault..

Actually.. You know what, sir.. Your right.. ME3 is like Tetris.. ME3 became like Tetris the moment that Bioware took an RPG and turned it into an arcade game with a predetermined ending.. Shepard and crew were hurled downward at high velocity toward a hole they couldn't possible fit in.. In the end, choices be damned..

[Torrible]

guacamayus wrote...

Torrible wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

I agree with his definition of synthesis, that's how I understood that part as well. However he is doing what many internet critics have done to date, the try to focus their review on 'the bigger picture' because he knows that going into too much detail is going to show all the game's flaws, that are many specially during priority: earth.

To me his review feels like saying 'hey, the ending may feel rushed and poorly implemented, but it doesn't matter since the whole game is an ending...' cmon, really?

It's all about differences in perception. 

http://www.myersbrig...r-intuition.asp 
http://users.trytel....ne-med/s-n.html 

Those who prefer Sensing (S), take in information through their five senses. Those who prefer iNtuiting, of course use their five senses to take in information, but they make the added jump and use a sixth sense to see all the possibilities or meaning of the information.

Intuitors tend to be more abstract and Sensors tend to be more concrete in their thought. It is not that Intuitors are smarter than Sensors; but often Intuitors will do better on IQ tests since they were designed by Intuitors.

The Intuitors are interested in the "big picture," while the Sensors want the details. Suppose a couple is planning a vacation. The Intuitor is talking about a vacation that will renew the spirit and be an enriching experience. The Sensor is demanding, "But where are you planning for us to go?" The Sensors want the details. The Intuitors are looking for a vision and will fill in the details "maybe" some time later.

Best estimates are that there are about 75% Sensors and 25% Intuitors in the general population.

I disagree, to me it was a simplistic way to review the game again without actually talking about its problems. Yes, ME3 warps up many things in the process and I think almost everyone can agree on that but that simply doesn't excuse the amount of cut content or the way they handled priority: earth.

I didn't say anything about the game or its ostensible problems. To elaborate, compared to Sensors, Intuitors are less inclined to allow a 5 min ending affect their entire perception of the game. Sensors are more likely to nitpick on things like Anderson getting ahead of Shepard. However, to be clear, no one is purely a sensor or intuitor (according to how MBTI works). Focusing on 'big picture' and being fastidious are not mutually exclusive. 

[TMA LIVE]

Robhuzz wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Xellith wrote...

If nobody can "get" your art - then you failed hard as an artist.

But I did get it.

Saying nobody is generalizing.

Besides, I think the majority get the ending. It's just a matter of not liking it.

I think the guy means the supposed 'art' in the ending. The majority understands perfectly well there's no such thing as art in the ME3 ending but it's just rushed garbage taken from other games like deus ex. The smug people who defend the ending with the art argument however, try to paint the ending haters as people who aren't smart enough to see that art and thus cannot appreciate the ending.

BS argument if I ever heard one:blink:

So what that the ending borrows from Deus Ex. ME2's ending borrowed from Contra. The Geth and Quarians are borrowed from Battlestar Galatica. The Krogan are a dinosaur version of the Klingons. The Illusive Man is borrowed from X-Files. etc.

Nothing wrong with that. Sure I wish things are more original, but honestly, Bioware games have mostly borrowed more then create.

[Hudathan]

Robhuzz wrote...

Everything coming from BioWare is BioWare contradicting themselves. The moment they announced the EC they acknowledged the ending was flawed, whether they'll admit it or not. If I write a book with an ending that nobody understands and personally think it's clear enough, I wouldn't release some kind of clarification. Since if I do not see the problem, I cannot do anything to solve it.

BioWare says they're proud of the ending (doubtful there are many devs at BioWare who share this statement) and nothing is wrong with it but at the same time they plan to release 'clarification'. If they're so certain the ending is good and clear, why release the clarification at all? Because in order to solve a problem you must first acknowledge said problem...

Maybe they just care enough to try and do something for the fans who are unhappy with their product?

If I made my famous cake for you and you didn't like that there was fruit in it, I might make you one without fruit as a courtesy. It doesn't mean that I no longer believe in my recipe.

[TMA LIVE]

The Angry One wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Xellith wrote...

If nobody can "get" your art - then you failed hard as an artist.

But I did get it.

Saying nobody is generalizing.

Besides, I think the majority get the ending. It's just a matter of not liking it.

What you "got" isn't what they intended*, this is smoke and mirrors, and you're not helping.

*Unless they intended for us to manufacture endings in our heads, which given Walters' attitude is possible.

What's not to get?

Shepard meets Star Kid.

Shepard makes a choice.

Choice either killed lots of people; killed Reapers and Geth; Made life cyborgish; Controlled the Reapers.

Your friends are shown alive, and have survived.

The end, unless it's all in your head.

What's not to get about this?

[The Angry One]

TMA LIVE wrote...

What's not to get?

Shepard meets Star Kid.

Shepard makes a choice.

Choice either killed lots of people; killed Reapers and Geth; Made life cyborgish; Controlled the Reapers.

Your friends are shown alive, and have survived.

The end, unless it's all in your head.

What's not to get about this?

...... everybody gets that. That's why it's crap.
That's not what we're talking about. BioWare have convinced themselves there's a deeper meaning here that we philistines "don't get". There is none, and now they've grown so desperate to prove themselves right in spite of the evidence by supporting morons who spout the "it's the journey that counts!!" argument.

[Movitz]

Funkdrspot wrote...

The problem is simply that for every person who has valid concerns over the end and expresses them in a logical way, there are 5 others who are being obtuse, whiny and attempt to find flaws where there aren't any. Then there are the 100 people parroting the words of those 5 in typical group-think fashion.

So if you're one of former, you shouldn't get defensive when Bioware argues that people don't get it, b/c you're not one of those people.

Agree.

[The Angry One]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

1 - Yes he is. His opinion just happens to based on heavily flawed ideas, and we shall point that out.

2 - See above.

3 - Sorry, this is not an argument. Yes, the whole game can be viewed as an ending. No, that doesn't mean the actual ending can nullify everything that came before without consequence. In fact, that makes it even WORSE because you are basically saying you wasted everybody's time with an ending that ultimately doesn't matter.

4 - You can like it just fine, for whatever reason. If you attempt to justify it however, we will point out you are objectively wrong.

5 - We. Shall. See.

Modifié par The Angry One, 12 mai 2012 - 01:31 .

[Indenter]

Felt like a typical ending of any game that made a good amount of fortune, fan count and recognition throughout the series and closed with big, fat middle finger.

There is nothing to speculate on, if I have to think up the story myself, I won't buy a game; I'll take a seat in my chair and let my imagination go wild. I won't pay to have to finish the story myself.

So all I, and many other people know is:

Shepard meets Star Kid.

Shepard makes a choice.

Choice either killed lots of people; killed Reapers and Geth; Made life cyborgish; Controlled the Reapers.

Your friends are shown alive, and have survived.


Promised choice would matter. Only choice in the trilogy that mattered was the last 3 mins of the 3rd game. So, my wallet would like you to look at it's big, fat middle finger.


The article is full of **** as well.
Who saved Legion in the 3rd game?
Who saved Thane in the 3rd game?
Who awakened Grunt in the 3rd game if they haven't in the 2nd?

ME3 feels lazy.
Not matter how big it is, how many words it has, or how proud the team is, it just feels lazy. Like a 24 hour trip in a car with you looking outside the window.

[perianwyrus]

3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.

I remembered reading :

The game has been lauded for delivering both the satisfying experience longtime fans have been yearning for while also being the best entry point to the series for players new to the franchise.

 
Logic ?

I'm just being facetious here since curing the genophage or ending the geth-quarian war was fantastic and exactly what I was waiting for in ME3 and it was really really awesome.
However you have to understand that all these great accomplishments built a very strong anticipation towards the final moments of the game, the long awaited confrontation with the reaper's army. There's no reason players could think : I've already had enough closure, stopping the reapers is just icing on the cake and don't count that much.  On the contrary I was very much thrilled entering the citadel and for me the grand finale was coming, the culmination of the game AND the Mass effect serie, not just another plot resolution during ME3.The final mission means more to me. It's not on the same plane than the other ME3 missions however world-changing they are. I'm not ending the Mass Effect 3 game here, i'm ending my Mass Effect journey. That is just not the same.

[Fnork]

you know what, nvm

Modifié par Fnork, 12 mai 2012 - 01:39 .

[The Angry One]

And seriously who decides to make the 3rd installment of the trilogy the "best entry point" for the series?

The series already has an entry point. IT'S CALLED MASS EFFECT 1.

[wicked_being]

The Angry One wrote...

And seriously who decides to make the 3rd installment of the trilogy the "best entry point" for the series?

The series already has an entry point. IT'S CALLED MASS EFFECT 1.

Seriously when I heard them say that, alarm bells went off. "This is the part where we dumb down the story so newcomers won't be so overwhelmed."

Why didn't they just do another Genesis-like comic choice thingy in the beginning?!

[MaxMcKay]

Jenonax wrote...

That's a cheap shot, really.

Return of the King wasn't one long goodbye. Deathly Hallows wasn't. Amber Spyglass wasn't. The last part of a trilogy ties everything together but still has to follow basic narrative structure. The whole thing is not a denoument because guess what, it would be BORING!

Sorry, but this guy needs to go back to Writing 101. I have never heard something so silly from someone who's company is supposed to be leaders in interactive storytelling.

This about sums up my thoughts very nicly I think