421 réponses à ce sujet

[F4H bandicoot]

CronoDragoon wrote...


A. Did they give a plausible scientific explanation for it? If not, it's space magic.

B. Which rules out their ability to control dead bodies, now doesn't it? But they do. The Rachni work the way the story needs them to work and always have. If you try and break it down it doesn't make sense. Space magic.

The thorian spread pollen like things which the colonists inhaled and then the thorian had control over them. Pretty plausible in the ME universe.

B. Erghh, "This one is weak" "her song is bittersweet" She's not yet dead. Just very close. If you actually listen to the Narrative it makes sense

[CronoDragoon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...


A. Did they give a plausible scientific explanation for it? If not, it's space magic.

B. Which rules out their ability to control dead bodies, now doesn't it? But they do. The Rachni work the way the story needs them to work and always have. If you try and break it down it doesn't make sense. Space magic.

The thorian spread pollen like things which the colonists inhaled and then the thorian had control over them. Pretty plausible in the ME universe.

B. Erghh, "This one is weak" "her song is bittersweet" She's not yet dead. Just very close. If you actually listen to the Narrative it makes sense

A: My point exactly. The diffusion of pollen inhaled somehow lets aliens control you. ME3 has always been space magicky.

B: Okay, I'll give you she was alive (the krogan in ME3 were not). How is this scientifically plausible anyway?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 30 juillet 2012 - 04:09 .

[Kel Riever]

Uh, @OP, no. Absolutely not.

[xxskyshadowxx]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

@clarkusdarkus: Welcome to my world.

But seriously, twelve hours of "I will destroy you!" or "Enemies everywhere!" in the same room gets pretty annoying.

Also, it's funny how people are saying Bioware paid off reviewers that gave them a good score. "I DIDN'T LIKE THE GAME SO IT'S TEH SUXXORZ!!!! lol"

This actually happens alot, Ubisoft (I think it was them anyway) threatened one review site that they would not pre release games to them unless their scores for ubi games picked up.
Ea are probably all over the same type of thing.

Yeah, maybe. Sorry for the immaturity, I just woke up. It's possible, but I don't think they had the time or money to pay off 75 individual reviewers.

It might be on a much larger scope over a much longer time period, Bioware are pretty new to EA, EA will probably call all the shots on that level, who gets the game to review etc..

EA buys large amounts of advertising pages from those sites. They don't have to threaten anyone like in the Ubisoft example. There was another example of a reviewist trashing a Ubisoft game review because they didn't give him an exclusive interview. I wish I could remember which one it was, but it's kind of an example that this kind of pandering/whatever happens on both sides of the coin. When AAA EA titles don't get rave reviews, you'll see fewer EA advertisements for a while. They make their statement via their wallet.

Which is something consumers should also be doing.

I generally ignore reviews because they are not unbiased and tend to not represent a game well to me personally and my gaming preferences. I typically look at what teh developers have to say as they make the game and right before release to determine if I will buy Day 1 or preorder, etc. Since ME3 I've learned that is not always the right way to go either.

Modifié par xxskyshadowxx, 30 juillet 2012 - 04:17 .

[Hawat]

About the original post... Hmm... No. ME was evolving since first instalment onwards. ME1 is a brilliant game, it's just different from the sequels.

[F4H bandicoot]

@Crono, it was spores, how does Reaper indoctrination work? Heck how does Eezo work?? Is that all space magic?? If it's explained. It's fine. The Thorian is explained.

B. Who knows. ME3 is where it went full retard. Reaper tech?? Maybe to yhe Racni they arn't dead until their song stops, who are we to say when yjat is.

[CronoDragoon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

@Crono, it was spores, how does Reaper indoctrination work? Heck how does Eezo work?? Is that all space magic?? If it's explained. It's fine. The Thorian is explained.

To be honest, yes. That is all space magic to some degree. Is it as space-magicky as Synthesis? Hell no. Nothing can top Synthesis in space magic properties. But the sci-fi in ME has always worked according to how the story needs it to. Like, how does Reaper tech indoctrinate people? How can Reapers control beings FROM DARK SPACE? It's not really explained scientifically, but it doesn't have to be. We just sort of accept it because the concepts are interesting and needed for the plot. If Destroy had employed Synthesis-type space magic to ensure both Shepard's survival and the survival of the geth/EDI, people would scoff but ultimately let it slide.

For example, I just completed DA: Origins again last night. The Dark Ritual is so incredibly contrived and nonsensical, but it allows your Warden and Alistair to survive so people don't want to dwell on the details. Now I realize that DA is a magical world, but there's nothing really in the DA lore that suggests something like the Dark Ritual is possible.

The point being, people only care about the space magic of the endings because the endings pissed them off anyway. That is why they go back and nitpick and call out plot points with no scientific grounding (Synthesis). But it should have been clear the moment Biotics were introduced that allowed you to Instant Transmission around the battlefield that the ME universe would always be sort of like Metal Gear: mostly grounded in reality but with some points of mysticism and magic involved.

[BluRay]

Op is a kids

[F4H bandicoot]

@Crono, well of course, but if it fits within the lore and is explained and believable (to an extent) then I see no reason to complain. The Ending is magic because, how does it work, why does itbwork, more questions than answers. It has no backing within the lore, whereas the vast majority of the other things do.

[CronoDragoon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

@Crono, well of course, but if it fits within the lore and is explained and believable (to an extent) then I see no reason to complain. The Ending is magic because, how does it work, why does itbwork, more questions than answers. It has no backing within the lore, whereas the vast majority of the other things do.

Okay, but what I am saying is that the lore itself is space magicky. Once we have established a world where things work a certain way because the plot needs them to, I don't think we can object to an ending that exemplifies this viewpoint. Synthesis may be super space-magicky, but it isn't breaking from ME tradition to rely on magic science rather than hard science to move the plot to where it needs to go. That Synthesis is not explained does not indicate a break from the general spirit of the Mass Effect world, where we are sometimes given at best a face explanation without any grounding in extrapolated science.

[F4H bandicoot]

I agree that the basis of the game is, magicy, however, the endings do not fit in with this magic, and uses magic that is not backed by lore or experennces the player has, if the crucible fired a big overload, that would fit within lore and player experience. However, it goes against what we use and learn in game. Which is why it is credited as "Space Magic"

[DPSSOC]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
What makes it bad?

Tedious exploration...  - which was taken out of ME3
with a barely controllable vehicle... - which was taken out of ME2
that leads to repetitive missions... - which is a problem that ME3 doesn't have

What was wrong with the Mako?  I'm going to sound really rude and insensitive and I apologize for that but who are you people who have trouble with that thing and what is your malfunction.

With the exploration are you talking about running around looking for mineral deposits and artifacts or actually looking for objectives on world?  One of those is a non-issue.

ME3 didn't have repetitive missions?  Were we playing the same game?  I remember 3 side missions in ME3; Waves, Collect, King of the Hill, that's it.

The Mad Hanar wrote...
which re use the same surroundings and enemy factions - Again, an issue that ME3 doesn't have

You realize there are only 3 enemies in the game right?  We fight the Reapers a few times, the Geth a few times, and other than that it's Cerberus.  Now if you wanted to argue there's more unit variety in ME3 I'd agree but ME1 actually didn't have enemy factions to re-use.  It's not like ME2 where you're constantly fighting Eclipse, Blue Suns, or Blood Pack when you're not fighting Collectors.  You have Saren with his Geth and Krogan and then unidentified pirates from prettty much every race.

The Mad Hanar wrote...
Shooting a gun on any level that's lower than 15 - Improved upon in ME2, and again in ME3

Care to elaborate?

The Mad Hanar wrote...
Any weapon reliant class - Made better in the sequels

The hell are you talking about?

[tyrvas]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It's a great story...but a bad game

Redeeming features:

Virmire
Ilos
Noveria
The ending
The Biotic classes
The music
The plot
The characters
The tension (up to a point)

What makes it bad?

Tedious exploration...  - which was taken out of ME3
with a barely controllable vehicle... - which was taken out of ME2
that leads to repetitive missions... - which is a problem that ME3 doesn't have
which re use the same surroundings and enemy factions - Again, an issue that ME3 doesn't have
Dialogue "choices" that lead Shepard to say the same thing no matter what - which is worse than auto dialogue, really...an illusion of choice to make the game seem deeper than it is
Shooting a gun on any level that's lower than 15 - Improved upon in ME2, and again in ME3
Bugs, and lots of them - Still a bit of a problem
Clunky combat overall - Improved upon in ME2 and 3
Re used sound bits - A non issue in the sequels
Unrealistic scope of time - would Saren really wait for you to run around a bunch of unmapped planets? Really? - Improved upon by making the side missions fit within the narrative in ME3
Any weapon reliant class - Made better in the sequels
A clunky inventory system - Non exsistent in the sequels.


There you have it. If you nit pick a game enough you can find problems in it. Ones that can be improved upon.

Exactly, now with your permission I will use your own words...

There you have it. If you nit pick a game enough you can find problems in it. Ones that can be improved upon.

...which as you mention is what has been done, without ME there is no ME2 or ME3.
sequels usually bring improvements over the original 1st game, the same as some faults.

But IMO ME is an awesome game with an awesome story.

[CronoDragoon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

I agree that the basis of the game is, magicy, however, the endings do not fit in with this magic, and uses magic that is not backed by lore or experennces the player has, if the crucible fired a big overload, that would fit within lore and player experience. However, it goes against what we use and learn in game. Which is why it is credited as "Space Magic"

So it is Space Magic because it is unprecented? I can buy that as a reason to dislike Synthesis, however I do not buy it as supporting evidence for bad writing. The entire point of Synthesis is that it is unprecedented and unsupported by previous lore. If it made sense in a practical, scientific way, then it wouldn't really have the same feel or philosophic stance behind it. You are trying something radically new, after all.

If you are like me, and find that it is simply too out there to choose (it is my least favorite ending) then we agree. But I think people use the "Space Magic" moniker for many things,  not limited to "unprecedented." They also mean to say it has no scientific basis, and it's primarily this usage to which I am objecting.

[incinerator950]

CronoDragoon wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

@Crono, well of course, but if it fits within the lore and is explained and believable (to an extent) then I see no reason to complain. The Ending is magic because, how does it work, why does itbwork, more questions than answers. It has no backing within the lore, whereas the vast majority of the other things do.

Okay, but what I am saying is that the lore itself is space magicky. Once we have established a world where things work a certain way because the plot needs them to, I don't think we can object to an ending that exemplifies this viewpoint. Synthesis may be super space-magicky, but it isn't breaking from ME tradition to rely on magic science rather than hard science to move the plot to where it needs to go. That Synthesis is not explained does not indicate a break from the general spirit of the Mass Effect world, where we are sometimes given at best a face explanation without any grounding in extrapolated science.

The physics behind most, if not all technology is theoretical.  By that point, you can make up any Space Magic so long as its explained in a bull**** scientific method?

[DRTJR]

Here is a comparison
ME1 is like THX 1138
ME2 is like the Original trilogy of Star Wars
ME3 is like the Prequel trilogy.

The first has High brow Ideas and not much else.
the Second is as near perfection as we mortals get.
the third has it's moments but other wise is pretty bad.

[LinksOcarina]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Perhaps, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that those reviewers legitimately thought ME3 was a superb game.

Remeber that we're a niche audience, and therefore are harder to please. We like our games to be made in a very paticular way and if something is missing, we go ape****. Reviewers don't do that, they focus on the bigger picture more. Mass Effect 3 is a great game on the surface. It's only when you dig that you find it's flaws.

Reviewers didn't have to dig very far to realize that they couldn't import their Shepard. 

Maybe they didn't import. "Best place to start the series", after all.

Well, i did import my shepard for my review. And it worked fine for me. 

And for the record, the whole picutre is important yes, but when reviewing a game its easy to let emotions make you even more biased than you are. Simply put, most reviewers fail in that respect; they do not keep those said emotions in check long enough to give it a fair shake, and just instead say "best game made, ten stars" and move on.

This is why I keep advocating for reviewers to actually put some rigorous language to use in their reviews, but we also live in a day and age where anyone with a platform can become a critic, even though they are either entertainers, ametuers or just some dude with a blog who likes saying things. 

[LinksOcarina]

CronoDragoon wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

I agree that the basis of the game is, magicy, however, the endings do not fit in with this magic, and uses magic that is not backed by lore or experennces the player has, if the crucible fired a big overload, that would fit within lore and player experience. However, it goes against what we use and learn in game. Which is why it is credited as "Space Magic"

So it is Space Magic because it is unprecented? I can buy that as a reason to dislike Synthesis, however I do not buy it as supporting evidence for bad writing. The entire point of Synthesis is that it is unprecedented and unsupported by previous lore. If it made sense in a practical, scientific way, then it wouldn't really have the same feel or philosophic stance behind it. You are trying something radically new, after all.

If you are like me, and find that it is simply too out there to choose (it is my least favorite ending) then we agree. But I think people use the "Space Magic" moniker for many things,  not limited to "unprecedented." They also mean to say it has no scientific basis, and it's primarily this usage to which I am objecting.

Yeah I have to agree with this...especially the bolded aspect.  

And to be honest I object to the whole "space magic" term the way I object to JRPG as a term; they were created to make context for something that doesn't exist, and it is poorly defined as a term as well, because many of the maor aspects of Mass Effect are fairly fantastical in terms of their implementation. Hell, the biggest elephant in the room is the Mass Relays for one, which the only explaination is that they generate a Mass Effect field through an element zero core, emit no radiation, heat or any residue when in use, and work as two-way streets for ships to travel instantaneously.

It's a huge structure that sends ships cross galaxy in seconds...thats not magical at all? Hell, they don't even explain how it works, other than the whole propelled thing via element zero down a primary or secondary relay. It is just a large tuning fork that is waiting to be tuned.

[Metalunatic]

ME1 is easily the best ME game. I guess people just have very different oppinions on what makes a good game.

[tonnactus]

CronoDragoon wrote...
ME1 had a story that featured large segments of ridiculous space magic like telepathic plants and a choir of bugs, but people didn't mind it back then.

Why shouldnt they? Stanislaw Lems "Solaris" had an intelligent ocean able to do things the Thorian did. Hardly space magic.

[jeffyg93]

DravenShep wrote...

 I have to say that without Mass Effect, there would be no 2 or 3, so when I say I loved ME1, I meant I loved all of it. just wished they FIXED the inventory a little better instead of getting rid of it completely. Seems EA wanted to take the RPG out of it.

Nah, BioWare (not EA) just wanted to take out the ****ty elements of ME1 rather than waste time trying to improve them.

ArtuThepig wrote...

Op is a kids

 

Well obviously. Anyone who has a differing opinion from me must be less mature than I! I like stroking my ego too.

DPSSOC wrote...

What was wrong with the Mako?  I'm going to sound really rude and insensitive and I apologize for that but who are you people who have trouble with that thing and what is your malfunction. 

 

"I apologize for insulting you but here's an insult directed at you and your mental capabilities."

It doesn't matter if you don't have a problem with the Mako, the fact is that many people did. It is not their fault for poor game design. The blame for the problem goes to the game designers, who designed a control scheme that so many people had problems with. To not take this into account when reviewing the quality of a game is being biased. 

DPSSOC wrote... 

With the exploration are you talking about running around looking for mineral deposits and artifacts or actually looking for objectives on world?  One of those is a non-issue.

ME3 didn't have repetitive missions?  Were we playing the same game?  I remember 3 side missions in ME3; Waves, Collect, King of the Hill, that's it. 

  

No, not really. Not nearly to the same ****ing scale as ME1. ME1's interiors all looked 100% alike. The fact that you consider ME3 to have repetitive missions does not negate ME1's own failings.

And ME3's missions are not repetitive because they vary with objective. Ignoring the fetch quests (which are a lot faster than manually going to the mineral desposit/artifact on foot), all of ME3's sidequests had different objectives. The locations vary, and they vary completely. ME1 recycles the same interiors. It's pretty lazy level design.

DPSSOC wrote...  
You realize there are only 3 enemies in the game right?  We fight the Reapers a few times, the Geth a few times, and other than that it's Cerberus.  Now if you wanted to argue there's more unit variety in ME3 I'd agree but ME1 actually didn't have enemy factions to re-use.  It's not like ME2 where you're constantly fighting Eclipse, Blue Suns, or Blood Pack when you're not fighting Collectors.  You have Saren with his Geth and Krogan and then unidentified pirates from prettty much every race. 

   

There are three types of enemies in ME3, and they all fight fairly differently from one another. In ME1, the enemy we're fighting 95% of the time is Geth, with the occasional brainwashed Krogan. We fight them on Eden Prime, Therum, Feros, Noveria, Virmire, Illos, and the Citadel. Every main quest planet, as well as a sizeable minority of side quest planets, which are all pretty ****ing redundant. Also, "unidentified pirates" is hardly a faction of enemies comparable to the factions in ME2 and ME3. Oh, and there's some sidequests with terrorists who only know two powers: biotic move that just knocks you down repeatedly and the other power of shouting the same phrase a billion times.

Yeah, I'd rather fight Cerberus, the Geth, and the Reapers in ME3. Far more variance in tactics and weaponry.

Modifié par jeffyg93, 30 juillet 2012 - 10:14 .