CavScout wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
CavScout, the only argument you seem to have is that the ending cannot be taken at anything other than face value, which flies in the face of any critical reasoning approach you can take when regarding the interpretation of a story.
You're wrong, but that won't stop you or other IT zelots.
I understand that it is your personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from yourself, but you're never going to win anybody over to your side by using an argument akin to the statement " A rock cannot be a boulder".
Care to actually back up your claim? Please show where I "personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from" me. Like IT, you can't support this at all.
A. You only hang out in The IT threads.
B. You bash the I.T. and its fans instead of actually trying to refute any aspects of it.
Like IT, you post "evidence" that doesn't support the claim. At best you can show I participate in IT threads, which is not the same as the claim that I am on a "personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from" me.
Expecting you to support the latest allegation when you can't even do so with the previous ones was silly.
Any chance you can go ahead and reply to the point I was making about inspiration for this story, which you attempted to discredit without actually understanding what I was saying?
Sisterofshane wrote...
CavScout, the only argument you
seem to have is that the ending cannot be taken at anything other than
face value, which flies in the face of any critical reasoning approach
you can take when regarding the interpretation of a story.
I
understand that it is your personal crusade to discredit anybody who
believes differently from yourself, but you're never going to win
anybody over to your side by using an argument akin to the statement " A
rock cannot be a boulder".
Yes exactly.
The trouble is, gaming stories are generally pretty basic, aiming at that 8+ "mainstream" market. Everything is very obvious, so that even a slightly slow child could understand what's going on. Sadly, this is why.
Bioware has very
very good writers, we have seen that time and time again - writing basic plots such as those in ME2 is a waste of their talents, and I understand why they wanted to give the story greater weight.
At their core, RPG's are supposed to be immersive. Therefore any other way of working indoctrination (the defining plot element of large parts of the series) into gameplay breaks immersion, whilst actually attempting to indoctrinate the player is something I assume they thought would be very well received.
The trouble is that most of the audience won't understand that, they're used to simple gaming stories of "work through room of chest high walls and shoot guy A, collect item from A and shoot through another room full of chest high walls to deliver it to B, because the bad guys are bad and the good guys are good and we say so that's why" that they won't pick up on what is a relatively subtle process. I mean hell, I've played all the games and DLC, and I nearly got fooled in the end, so expecting a gamer who starts on ME3 or such to pick up on it is wildly optimistic.
So in short, yes, I can understand why they did it, I think it's a very cool idea, but I think if you're going to pull a twist like that you should try to ensure a relatively short (no more than 6 week) run up to DLC.
Retour en haut
:lol:
