354 réponses à ce sujet

[Memnon]

Why are we talking about art like all of it is good ... there's some pretty awful art out there

[The Spamming Troll]

theres a reason why my neighbors 3rd grade kids fridge artwork isnt being shown at the louvre.

some art is good, and some is ME3.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 08 août 2012 - 01:55 .

[Peranor]

Jonata wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

He talks about art and storytelling like he's an expert and then practically worships one of the oldest cliches in the book: the Adam and Eve parallel. I'd say there's a lot of intellectual ****** here that gets in the way of the message he's trying to send, and his Citizen Kane comparison actually backfires since he doesn't consider a very integral aspect of Mass Effect 3 - the choices - as seriously.

There are several problems in what you're saying, because you do not know some essential thing sabout Film Crit HULK's writing style and why he says what he says. First of all, he is an expert about storytelling: check his 3-articles-long essay about storytelling, called "Storytelling 101"... he stated long ago that he is a professional writer with a lot of experience, and a lot of passion about storytelling.

Also, he is absolutely against cliches and he actually hates "the Journey of the Hero", for example, but for what I can tell, he love a thing that we should all consider more: the power of simple and "on-the-nose" simbolism used well. I wouldn't say he's worshipping the Adam/Eve scene anyway, he just liked it as a part of the ending.

About Citizen Kane, and this is the third time I write this in this thread, he's not talking about Citizen Kane as a movie compared to Mass Effect 3, but he's comparing what Citizen Kane did for the movie industry to what Mass Effect 3 can do to the videogame industry.

Choices do matter: he says that some of the most powerful messages the endings of ME3 is that the player has to chose a path that reflect some aspects of humanity and morality as a whole. 

I feel like a parrot because I'm just saying what he already wrote down there, but really, you just have to read the article. It's all there, just read it carefully before dismissing it.

Come on now. ME3 will do nothing for the game industry. If he thinks otherwise he is just deluded.
It's a decent game and that's that. It brings nothing new to the table. We've seen it all before.


Ok, one thing that ME3 can do for the industry is to teach others how to not write an ending....

[Urdnot Amenark]

Jonata wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

He talks about art and storytelling like he's an expert and then practically worships one of the oldest cliches in the book: the Adam and Eve parallel. I'd say there's a lot of intellectual ****** here that gets in the way of the message he's trying to send, and his Citizen Kane comparison actually backfires since he doesn't consider a very integral aspect of Mass Effect 3 - the choices - as seriously.

There are several problems in what you're saying, because you do not know some essential thing sabout Film Crit HULK's writing style and why he says what he says. First of all, he is an expert about storytelling: check his 3-articles-long essay about storytelling, called "Storytelling 101"... he stated long ago that he is a professional writer with a lot of experience, and a lot of passion about storytelling.

Also, he is absolutely against cliches and he actually hates "the Journey of the Hero", for example, but for what I can tell, he love a thing that we should all consider more: the power of simple and "on-the-nose" simbolism used well. I wouldn't say he's worshipping the Adam/Eve scene anyway, he just liked it as a part of the ending.

About Citizen Kane, and this is the third time I write this in this thread, he's not talking about Citizen Kane as a movie compared to Mass Effect 3, but he's comparing what Citizen Kane did for the movie industry to what Mass Effect 3 can do to the videogame industry.

Choices do matter: he says that some of the most powerful messages the endings of ME3 is that the player has to chose a path that reflect some aspects of humanity and morality as a whole. 

I feel like a parrot because I'm just saying what he already wrote down there, but really, you just have to read the article. It's all there, just read it carefully before dismissing it.

If he's absolutely against cliches, then he wouldn't have fallen for the rather tired and over-used Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve parallel, and in this case it is the most hamhanded form of symbolism that can be thrown in the story, especially since it has absolutely no allusions prior, unless we count the already awkward relationship Joker and EDI have, which isn't saying much.

Secondly, I know how he's comparing Citizen Kane, so your comment is a non-issue, and in Mass Effect 3's case, which isn't considered successful in terms of theme and story, it's a pretty premature comparison. 

I've clearly read his post. Just because I don't arrive at the same conclusion as you doesn't mean I'm dismissing him.

[D24O]

Well lets be fair, 3 had some pretty good moments, the way they tied up stories from across 3 games to present the Tuchunka and Rannoch arcs was very well done, I think that if it is to have an impact, those will be the examples to follow. That and how to write characters, IMO the ME series had great characters.

[Urdnot Amenark]

D24O wrote...

Well lets be fair, 3 had some pretty good moments, the way they tied up stories from across 3 games to present the Tuchunka and Rannoch arcs was very well done, I think that if it is to have an impact, those will be the examples to follow. That and how to write characters, IMO the ME series had great characters.

That I can agree on. They definitely succeeded in character writing; although they did shaft a couple characters I liked a whole lot.

[D24O]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

That I can agree on. They definitely succeeded in character writing; although they did shaft a couple characters I liked a whole lot.

Character was oneof the strongest parts of the series, that is true, which is why those parts were executed very well, because they tied in with the stronger aspects of the game, the characters were pretty deeply involved in those story arcs. 

[Jonata]

jeffyg93 wrote...

I actually enjoyed the read after getting my eyes tuned to the caps. Although I don't necessarily agree with all his points, I enjoyed the new perspective and although I still find the original endings flawed, I now have a little respect for them where all there was before was confusion and indulgence.

If most of the comments were like this one, my opinion about gamers would not be as bad as it is right now.

[Urdnot Amenark]

D24O wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

That I can agree on. They definitely succeeded in character writing; although they did shaft a couple characters I liked a whole lot.

Character was oneof the strongest parts of the series, that is true, which is why those parts were executed very well, because they tied in with the stronger aspects of the game, the characters were pretty deeply involved in those story arcs. 

They've always been skilled when it comes to writing characters though, and I think what strengthens it in this case is that we've watched them evolve throughout the series, and in some cases change dramatically, both for the good, and in others (ermmm... Jacob?) for the worst. I hate how they turned TIM into the Human version of Saren though. 

[Peranor]

D24O wrote...

Well lets be fair, 3 had some pretty good moments, the way they tied up stories from across 3 games to present the Tuchunka and Rannoch arcs was very well done, I think that if it is to have an impact, those will be the examples to follow. That and how to write characters, IMO the ME series had great characters.

Oh it did have some great moments. But ME3 is not gods gift to mankind like some people make it sound like.
It's a decent game with some great moments and a silly pseudo-philosophical ending.

In the future ME3 will be remembered for the controversy and the uproar.
Not for breaking new grounds in storytelling and/or gameplay. Because it didn't.

Modifié par anorling, 08 août 2012 - 02:24 .

[D24O]

@ Urdnot: I actually enjoyed that part of the ending, and the feeling of coming full circle, and while I don't like him being reduced to a Reaper thrall, the callback was kind of cool.

@anorling: Part of me hopes that ME is remembered for its good aspects, I mean, I still love the series, disappointment and apathy towards the end aside, but i suppose we'll see what happens.

[ld1449]

Jonata wrote...

There are several problems in what you're saying, because you do not know some essential thing sabout Film Crit HULK's writing style and why he says what he says. First of all, he is an expert about storytelling: check his 3-articles-long essay about storytelling, called "Storytelling 101"... he stated long ago that he is a professional writer with a lot of experience, and a lot of passion about storytelling.

Also, he is absolutely against cliches and he actually hates "the Journey of the Hero", for example, but for what I can tell, he love a thing that we should all consider more: the power of simple and "on-the-nose" simbolism used well. I wouldn't say he's worshipping the Adam/Eve scene anyway, he just liked it as a part of the ending.

About Citizen Kane, and this is the third time I write this in this thread, he's not talking about Citizen Kane as a movie compared to Mass Effect 3, but he's comparing what Citizen Kane did for the movie industry to what Mass Effect 3 can do to the videogame industry.

Choices do matter: he says that some of the most powerful messages the endings of ME3 is that the player has to chose a path that reflect some aspects of humanity and morality as a whole. 

I feel like a parrot because I'm just saying what he already wrote down there, but really, you just have to read the article. It's all there, just read it carefully before dismissing it.

If he really is a writer then  he should know better than to equate symbolism with good writing read my earlier post as to why (Its on page 1)

[Urdnot Amenark]

D24O wrote...

@ Urdnot: I actually enjoyed that part of the ending, and the feeling of coming full circle, and while I don't like him being reduced to a Reaper thrall, the callback was kind of cool.

@anorling: Part of me hopes that ME is remembered for its good aspects, I mean, I still love the series, disappointment and apathy towards the end aside, but i suppose we'll see what happens.

I liked that final showdown myself to be honest. I just wish they wouldn't have played it safe by going the traditional route in terms of him simply becoming indoctrinated. This was however, one of the more meaningful uses of visual imagery and I would have honestly loved to see them take it further. 

[Jonata]

ld1449 wrote..

If he really is a writer then  he should know better than to equate symbolism with good writing read my earlier post as to why (Its on page 1)

I don't think there are enough reasons to believe he's equating simbolism with good writing. He's mostly talking about the non-indulgent nature of art. That could involve simbolism but it's not the main focus of the article and definitely not the message he's trying to send.

[D24O]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

I liked that final showdown myself to be honest. I just wish they wouldn't have played it safe by going the traditional route in terms of him simply becoming indoctrinated. This was however, one of the more meaningful uses of visual imagery and I would have honestly loved to see them take it further. 

I definately agree. IMO it does take away from his character bening indoctrinated.

[Joccaren]

Jonata wrote...

If most of the comments were like this one, my opinion about gamers would not be as bad as it is right now.

Why is it bad now?
Because people expect different things to Hulk, point out why his assessment isn't entirely valid or correct and don't change their mind because of him?

This reaks of Holier than Thou TBH.

I disagree with Hulk. I can see where he's coming from, but artistic symbolism isn't all that's needed to make an ending good. He says little on the ending itself, mostly talking about its symbolism and how that works in. Great, but that's not all there is to good writing, and symbolism without proper context is a failed endeavour.

[Jonata]

Joccaren wrote...

Jonata wrote...

If most of the comments were like this one, my opinion about gamers would not be as bad as it is right now.

Why is it bad now?
Because people expect different things to Hulk, point out why his assessment isn't entirely valid or correct and don't change their mind because of him?

This reaks of Holier than Thou TBH.

I disagree with Hulk. I can see where he's coming from, but artistic symbolism isn't all that's needed to make an ending good. He says little on the ending itself, mostly talking about its symbolism and how that works in. Great, but that's not all there is to good writing, and symbolism without proper context is a failed endeavour.

If you would have read the comment that I was quoting, that guy was actually disagreeing with Hulk. He was not stating that Hulk was right, he said that the ending were still disappointing. But he said so without harsh remarks or easy sarcasm. That's what I appreciated, not the fact that he was agreeing with me, but the fact that he was politely and quitely disagreeing.

But gamers are not like this nowadays. Gamers tend to be a bunch of people that claim to love games but appearently they do so only to have the opportunity to whine on forums using silly jokes to boost their popularity. Gamers looks a lot like a noisy crowd full of Comic Book Guy clones from The Simpsons.

That being said, Hulk is NOT focusing on the simbolism alone. The focus of his piece is about the message that has to be sent in order to consider the game art, and about the non-indulgent nature of art. "Simbolism" is just a word that he uses. The fact that the word "simbolism" has been used countless times before in these forums doesn't mean that he is using it just like everyone on the BSN does.

Modifié par Jonata, 08 août 2012 - 05:51 .

[anonymous137]

Tried to comment but couldn't get it to post for some reason. here's what I wanted to post to him.



With respect, I have to disagree with you. Tossing all humility out the window, I am a fairly intelligent person and not once did the idea of cycles stand out as a major theme to me in Mass Effect. Sacrifice, loyalty, overcoming differences, choices and consequences(though admittedly heavily skewed towards the paragon end in terms of results), YES CHOICE, free will, and belief in hope. I believe in your review you've neglected what really made the endings "bad".

They make little sense IN THE CONTEXT of the rest of the series. While the rest of Mass Effect made a point of accepting differences and working together to become more than the sum of our parts, the catalyst's problem is that he believes this to be impossible. He flat out says that synthetics and organics cannot co-exist peacefully without killing each other. There can be no lasting peace, synthetics will kill all organics.

Despite this, every conflict presented or mentioned in the game comes from the catalyst's reapers. The protheans had the zha'til synthetic/organic race, which it's implied was manipulated by sovereign as the Rachnii in the "current" cycle were, that they fought and were on the verge of defeating before the reaper main force arrived. The geth only fought back against the quarians when threatened with genocide and then when the geth had the opportunity to do the same, they did not.

The geth heretics were misled by the reapers into attacking the citadel in Mass Effect 1. In mass effect 3, we are told that the geth once again only fight back when the quarians attack them and are only able to possibly defeat them by receiving reaper assistance. In one scenario of the game, which many people(myself included) had, the geth and quarians achieve peace. They don't need a magical green explosion to turn them all into advanced cyborgs, they just need to overcome their differences and recognize their common rights and beliefs as fellow sentients. In fact the geth have been maintaining rannoch so that their creators could come home. EDI was an VI who gained intelligence and reacted in self-defense when being attacked. She becomes a great ally and friend to shepard and forms a romantic relationship with Joker, again refuting the idea that synthetics and organics cannot coexist in peace. In mass effect, the final problem which we are given to solve is one which has been artificially created by the very thing which supposedly aims to prevent it.

In a game like Deus Ex, the idea of a technological singularity fits because it is presented as inevitable. In Mass Effect it does not because the rest of the series, and Mass Effect 3 in particular, refutes the idea that it is inevitable as the catalyst believes. In fact, what is presented as the greatest solution to the "problem", Synthesis, is quite clearly explained as a bad idea in the Mass Effect 2 DLC mission "overlord". In that DLC we see a glimpse of what will happen with synthesis. The man who cerberus tries to "synthesize" becomes nigh-insane and begs to be unplugged from the machine connecting him with the geth consensus. To summarize, the ending of Mass Effect 3 was bad because the catalyst doesn't believe synthetics and organics can overcome basic differences despite being proven wrong repeatedly. Following the catalyst's logic, superficial differences between two groups of sentients cannot be overcome so the only solution is for: one to dominate the other as in the Control ending, remove those differences as in the synthesis ending, or for one to destroy the other as in the destroy ending. That is a moronic belief.

Beyond thematic problems, the ending has several other issues such as the catalyst's form. I believe the vast majority of gamers, I might be wrong, but I believe most of us understand symbolism. Symbolism is good, but only when it is done properly and makes sense for it to be present. The catalyst's appearance as a child who shepard saw on earth for less than a minute makes no sense in any realistic context. How would the catalyst know this form to begin with and how would it know to take this form with shepard? It makes no sense for the catalyst to take the symbolic form of the child. Even beyond that, the game missed out on the opportunity to truly show the medium's capacity by reflecting multiple decisions and producing morally grey decisions. Interactivity is gaming's unique artistic device. Mass effect could have had so much more variability in terms of character development and the story than was given and it's a shame that the potential was squandered by two men working alone without peer review. The endings were bad in philosophy, theme, and execution. Thank you for writing a much more cogent defense of the ending than I have seen anywhere else, but I still must strongly disagree.

[SnakeSNMF]

I think as a flim-critic, he's entirely biased and is limited to his perspective of playing the third game solely as was his intention.

A film and a video-game itself are far different; the scripts have to change. You, make the decision. That's probably why, "HULK" appreciated it so much. Because we weren't really presented with much choice, it was rather an act of will that was forced on us by the Catalyst, through some bull**** cloud logic which he considered as, "logical" due to his film-watching so much.

This is a biased interview, and I've read it all. I had to sit through the annoying as hell caps to see a poor argument presented, that I seriously could not tell whether or not he was trolling.

Either way, no.

[Nonoru]

OniTYME wrote...

My exact reaction when reading the first lines.

[Joccaren]

Jonata wrote...

If you would have read the comment that I was quoting, that guy was actually disagreeing with Hulk. He was not stating that Hulk was right, he said that the ending were still disappointing. But he said so without harsh remarks or easy sarcasm. That's what I appreciated, not the fact that he was agreeing with me, but the fact that he was politely and quitely disagreeing.

But gamers are not like this nowadays. Gamers tend to be a bunch of people that claim to love games but appearently they do so only to have the opportunity to whine on forums using silly jokes to boost their popularity. Gamers looks a lot like a noisy crowd full of Comic Book Guy clones from The Simpsons.

You do realise that is the point of forums and threads right? To have a discussion. If its all "Agree to disagree", it doesn't work. No conversations are had. Forums die.
The Forums are a place to talk about the game. NOT a place to talk ONLY about how much you loved or hated the game. Inevitably, that means these two types people will crash, and they will have an argument about loving/hating certain aspects of the game.
Just because someone has a negative opinoin of something and voices it on forums does not mean they are whining.

That being said, Hulk is NOT focusing on the simbolism alone. The focus of his piece is about the message that has to be sent in order to consider the game art, and about the non-indulgent nature of art. "Simbolism" is just a word that he uses. The fact that the word "simbolism" has been used countless times before in these forums doesn't mean that he is using it just like everyone on the BSN does.

The message is conveyed through the symbolism, however, and very little of what he says has anything to do with how the ending fits with the plot, or how it relates to it. He instead focuses on art and how that ended had a message, and symbolism and all that jazz. That's all well and good, but again - context. Within the context of ME, the ending does not fit. Hell, a fair bit of ME3 doesn't fit IMO but that's a discussion for another time.
To argue that an ending is good, you can't simply ignore everything else about the series it is an end to.
Hulk spends about half his column saying how bad we all are for wanting a satisfying ending, and how we're all "Give me" and "I want" in regards to products we buy. Beyond that, he talks about cycles, and his views on art. One could be forgiven after reading his review that all ME consisted of was cycles - just a constantly repeating loop of everything happening over and over again like "Every day the same day" or W/E it was called. Sadly, ME was not purely about cycles.

Hell, I don't even see much of Hulk arguing that the ending was good. He seems to argue more about the fact that whether we like it or not, we should accept it because its - to him - art.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Jonata wrote...

The focus of his piece is about the message that has to be sent in order to consider the game art, and about the non-indulgent nature of art.

Then art is worthless, as are his arguments. Art may not be indulgent, but consumerism is. If art isn't at least able to give the appearance of satisfying some desire, it doesn't get made.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 08 août 2012 - 01:37 .

[Obadiah]

@Joccaren Sure read to me like Hulk thought the original ending was good. Hulk seemed to think it was "beautiful" actually.

[3DandBeyond]

anorling wrote...

Come on now. ME3 will do nothing for the game industry. If he thinks otherwise he is just deluded.
It's a decent game and that's that. It brings nothing new to the table. We've seen it all before.


Ok, one thing that ME3 can do for the industry is to teach others how to not write an ending....

Hopefully it will teach others that when you claim some art is your own vision, it should be your own original vision and not some slapped together bits of the vision of others.

I suppose I could cut out a bunch of photos that other people took and glue them together to make one picture and call it art, but I think the other artists might complain.

You want to defend your art as your art, make sure it is yours.

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

yet you are ignorant since when people do show you proof to back up their comment you claim it to be false or taken out of content, while you never show anything and resort to using pointless phrases and say that we insulted you

If I'm "ignorant" then I would only insult people and try to turn opinions into facts, which I haven't done while you have.

you still didn't back up any of your comments, and like I said claim everything you said is *facts*

I love the irony here based on how you're only using insults, which would be based on opinion, instead of staying on topic.

AresKeith wrote...

and I like how some people who like the ending always try to play victim when they act the same way

Thats very ironic based on how you always act like the victim and insult people, which is very contradicting. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 août 2012 - 04:07 .