354 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

Leon Felps wrote... 

This kid has severe down syndrome or is doing it on purpose.  Either case is sad, but just know that no actual discussion is taking place.

No real discussion usually takes place when someone likes ME3 just like any other Bioware game because its the "cool" thing to do.  The irony of the whole "down syndrome"  things is that some people used to say that about Sovreign and Harbinger.

Leon Felps wrote...

Also, these critics speak as though video game "maturing" to be like the movies is the golden path.  News to me that film became the best thing in life ever.  Some games will shine better taking that approach, a lot will not.  ME3 fell into the latter to me.

Film has matured just like video games have matured while some people don't like change and to admit that everything is art whether they love it or hate it.

[Blueprotoss]

Mahrac wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

It sounds like you and a couple people haven't played ME3 based on how it still continueswhat ME1 and ME2 did.  

THen tell me what themes it continued. Personally I don't see how it kept the themes of overcoming the impossible, finding a third option, strength through diversity, ect.

Synthesis, Control, Destory, Creator vs Created, Indoctrination, Experimentation, Racism, Genocide, and etc.   Overcoming the Impossible isn't a theme based on how nothing is impossible other then killing the Reapers conventually. 

In order, not a theme of the series, not a theme of the series,
not a theme of the series, minor conflict, mechanic, not a theme, not a theme, not touched on by the end, point.

Yet all of them are themes in ME1, ME2, and ME3 whether you like it or hate it.

Mahrac wrote... 

And what do you mean it's not a theme? suicide mission... Ilos... beating Sovreign... Plenty of times in the series that Shepard accomplished the impossible.

The fight against the Reapers haven't been impossible unless if we're talking about a conventional victory.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 août 2012 - 03:45 .

[Jonata]

I would just like to say that anyone ever said, nor HULK nor anyone else in that website, that videogames should look like movies to be more mature. That being said, they're obviously down that path, but 99% of games only mimic the movie style without actually realising the potential of storytelling.

[Blueprotoss]

Sauruz wrote...

On a related note, the people from RedLetterMedia (most familiar for the overly long "Plinkett" reviews bashing on the Star Wars prequels) have promised to make something regarding the ME3 endings months ago.

So another useless rage will happen over nothing while I'm not excited about this even when the dead horse of Star Wars is still beaten uselessly.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Dark Souls was a damn good game, probably in my top five. It's a shame to hear this kinda stuff ruining the experience for others.

You can't please everyone especially when pleasing everyone is an impossible goal.

Thore2k10 wrote...

Mass Effect 3s ending is not art. If you put nonsense together with nonsense and add sad piano music and a few nice background images it doesnt become art. 

There was art in mass effect, but only til Anderson died. After that it was just plain stupid imho!

Clearly you haven't read that many books or watched that many films based on this bias. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 août 2012 - 04:13 .

[F4H bandicoot]

What a stupud, stupid article.

[Grub Killer8016]

Can't even read it seriously.

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well I don't know about the rest of those (I do know a bit about Diablo 3 and if you think what was done to it was a great thing then you don't know what you are talking about)-but I do very much know about Dark Souls.  I played Demon's Souls and had 2 versions of it-the NA and EU versions so I could play with friends and others and didn't have a problem doing so.  Dark Souls came out and Bandai Namco set up the most god awful P2P solution for online play (an integral part of the game) that I've ever seen.  You needed to play online to go many of the things in the game and while many really wanted to play specifically with friends, others were begging to be able to play with anyone randomly and the P2P lobbies that were created were so small for a great number of players they were empty-so you couldn't play online at all, ever.  And most of the lobbies threw everyone into online play with Japanese players and made it almost impossible to play with a friend.

The problems with Diablo 3 on the server issues is nothing new especially when most of the Battlenet users expected that if they played Starcraft 2 at launch.  The actual example of entitlement for Diablo 3 is based on very small cosmetic only sigil for Closed Beta players.  Those are just nippicks on Dark Souls even when the game barely changed from Demon to Dark

3DandBeyond wrote... 

And I will repeat the online play was integrated into the SP experience-you needed to play online to merely have help at times to get through the game.  That is the type of game Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are.  And Dark Souls was released with Bandai Namco saying it was all about playing with friends, when many couldn't play with anyone at all.

From software the Japanese dev, set about fixing it after fans repeatedly asked it be fixed because it was a broken aspect of the game.  They released a patch to Japanese players first and it further broke their games-they could no longer play at all online ever.  Japanese players that don't usually complain about too many things began to get really angry at From and accused them of using them as Beta testers.  From finally came out and admitted they made an error and apologized for the patch.  The solution to the whole thing was to make the P2P lobbies bigger (32 people as opposed to 8 or 16), but it never fully corrected to problem as playing online with others was hit or miss and sometimes involved waiting 45 minutes or longer.  Most of the blame was directed at Bandai Namco because it seems the game was developed to need actual servers and BN likes to do things cheaply.  The NA servers for Demon's Souls (run by Atlus) never had these issues.

Those are just nippicks on Dark Souls even when the game barely changed from Demon to Dark especially when Namco Bandai had the original rights while Atlus translated Demon to the West and owned the Publishing rights in the West.  The small uproar is coming from the PC version of Dark Souls based on how it uses Games for Windows and the irony of that most of them weren't a part of the 100,000 to get the game to be released in the 1st place.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

Fans are customers.  When companies do things wrong, what is the best thing to do, complain or return the game and move on?  If people continually return the game (if they even can), then games might not get made.  If that's what you want to happen to games you like, keep telling people not to complain.

Companies are never in the wrong when its their product and if the "fans" think otherwise then they should go into business in the Gaming Industry or any other medium based industry.  Most of the "fans"  just like to complain and they wouldn't know what to do if they caught that "car" similar to the Joker in the Dark Knight when he got what he wanted.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

I loved Demon's Souls and like ME3, I'd been really counting on a lot of fun with Dark Souls and like many many others most of the game was broken because online didn't work right.  I platted it and moved on.  And it's questionable if any sort of "sequel" to it will ever be released globally again.

Dark Souls will have a sequel while the Online worked fine for the game and it sounded like you expected something else.

[Blueprotoss]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

D24O wrote...

But that's the point. People were so turned off by the ending that they refuse to even consider what the statement they were trying to make is. I don't see that as a successful execution of a work of art.

It's definitely not, which is why art arguments are pretty invalid in this case, although practically every person I've seen respond to the ending controversy tries to use this fiasco to support the idea that game's won't be considered art.

Everything is art whether you love it or hate it.  I personally hate anything done by Kanye West and everything with Twilight while they're still art even when I hate it.

D24O wrote...

So are you saying that games can't be considered art?

The video game exhibit in the Art Smithsonian of Natural History from 4-5 months ago would prove him wrong. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 août 2012 - 04:13 .

[Jonata]

I'm a little bit tired of porting here HULK's words in my posts, so I'l just send you there: people, I politely ask you to do a quick research through the article's comments before posting in this thread.

Film Crit HULK himself is actually answering 90% of the arguments made here in the comments.

[Blueprotoss]

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.

Yet the "holier than thou" generalization mainly comes from the "fans" that also condict themselves by lashing out at every new Bioware game, which happened since Baldur's Gate 2.

[Blueprotoss]

SnakeSNMF wrote...

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.

How is he biased even when most video games are treated as movies, tv shows, comics, or novels?  Heck him giving a different view is incrediblely unbiased if anything.

[Memnon]

Blueprotoss wrote...

SnakeSNMF wrote...

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.

How is he biased even when most video games are treated as movies, tv shows, comics, or novels?  Heck him giving a different view is incrediblely unbiased if anything.

"Bias" means he went into the review with a preconceived opinion - which is obvious. It has nothing to do with being different

[Kamfrenchie]

the thing is that anyone can invent brilliance it want in ME3 ending despiteits flaw and nonense.

Some people ill find a turd and the proceed to tell you about ho it means metaphyscs things...

But ME3 has too many plotholes an porrly tod story prt fr me to believe they had such a message.

Dont careabout that hulk or his notoriety, he's wrong nd we've exposed ME3 poorly done and out of character ending plenty of time

And blue protoss, quit trolling. roducts can be wrong and faulty, unless you wanna be the new catalys and argue against logic.

[Blueprotoss]

Stornskar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

SnakeSNMF wrote...

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.

How is he biased even when most video games are treated as movies, tv shows, comics, or novels?  Heck him giving a different view is incrediblely unbiased if anything.

"Bias" means he went into the review with a preconceived opinion - which is obvious. It has nothing to do with being different

Yet he didn't while I'm sensing a lot of real bias coming from you because you expected a review to bash ME3.

[Blueprotoss]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

the thing is that anyone can invent brilliance it want in ME3 ending despiteits flaw and nonense.

Some people ill find a turd and the proceed to tell you about ho it means metaphyscs things...

But ME3 has too many plotholes an porrly tod story prt fr me to believe they had such a message.

Dont careabout that hulk or his notoriety, he's wrong nd we've exposed ME3 poorly done and out of character ending plenty of time

And blue protoss, quit trolling. roducts can be wrong and faulty, unless you wanna be the new catalys and argue against logic.

If you didn't care then you woludn't be here commenting on the topic and if I was a "troll" then I would be throwing out random insults just like you.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 août 2012 - 04:57 .

[Kamfrenchie]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

the thing is that anyone can invent brilliance it want in ME3 ending despiteits flaw and nonense.

Some people ill find a turd and the proceed to tell you about ho it means metaphyscs things...

But ME3 has too many plotholes an porrly tod story prt fr me to believe they had such a message.

Dont careabout that hulk or his notoriety, he's wrong nd we've exposed ME3 poorly done and out of character ending plenty of time

And blue protoss, quit trolling. roducts can be wrong and faulty, unless you wanna be the new catalys and argue against logic.

If you didn't care then you woludn't be here commenting on the topic and if I was a "troll" then I would be throwing out random insults just like you.

dn't care abou his fame, read betwen the line.

Yet you stil resot to poor logic and buse o yet, yet yet yet.

You argue against logic mister.

[Memnon]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Stornskar wrote...


"Bias" means he went into the review with a preconceived opinion - which is obvious. It has nothing to do with being different

Yet he didn't while I'm sensing a lot of real bias coming from you because you expected a review to bash ME3.

Boy, you sure know a lot about me - I don't care what people say about ME3, I know how I feel about it - enjoyed most of it, hated the endings. If I'm in the minority, or if I'm the only person on the planet who feels like that, I don't care. I don't need approval from a majority to make me feel like my opinion is validated.

[Blueprotoss]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

the thing is that anyone can invent brilliance it want in ME3 ending despiteits flaw and nonense.

Some people ill find a turd and the proceed to tell you about ho it means metaphyscs things...

But ME3 has too many plotholes an porrly tod story prt fr me to believe they had such a message.

Dont careabout that hulk or his notoriety, he's wrong nd we've exposed ME3 poorly done and out of character ending plenty of time

And blue protoss, quit trolling. roducts can be wrong and faulty, unless you wanna be the new catalys and argue against logic.

If you didn't care then you woludn't be here commenting on the topic and if I was a "troll" then I would be throwing out random insults just like you.

dn't care abou his fame, read betwen the line.

Yet you stil resot to poor logic and buse o yet, yet yet yet.

You argue against logic mister.

The poor logic would be insulting people, which you have in spades.

[Blueprotoss]

Stornskar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Stornskar wrote...


"Bias" means he went into the review with a preconceived opinion - which is obvious. It has nothing to do with being different

Yet he didn't while I'm sensing a lot of real bias coming from you because you expected a review to bash ME3.

Boy, you sure know a lot about me - I don't care what people say about ME3, I know how I feel about it - enjoyed most of it, hated the endings. If I'm in the minority, or if I'm the only person on the planet who feels like that, I don't care. I don't need approval from a majority to make me feel like my opinion is validated.

You can have an opinion just like everyone else while everyon deserves respect and remember everyone has their own tastes.  The problem is when people try to turn opinions into facts.

[Urdnot Amenark]

D24O wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

It's definitely not, which is why art arguments are pretty invalid in this case, although practically every person I've seen respond to the ending controversy tries to use this fiasco to support the idea that game's won't be considered art.

So are you saying that games can't be considered art?

Just noticed this comment. I won't comment on that debate, but I will clarify: the people who try to use this example to support the idea that games can't be considered art are usually those who liked the ending and were displeased with the fan's reactions to it. They basically framed the situation by suggesting it was hypocritical to talk about games possibly being "art" while limiting "artistic freedom" of the writers at Bioware because they didn't like the ending, and all that jazz. In this case, Mass Effect 3 - unless sparking a fierce outpouring of distaste that led to the EC was their intent - failed to reach most of its intended audience as a work of art, so even if games were considered "art", this wouldn't be revered as successful. 

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Those are just nippicks on Dark Souls even when the game barely changed from Demon to Dark especially when Namco Bandai had the original rights while Atlus translated Demon to the West and owned the Publishing rights in the West.  The small uproar is coming from the PC version of Dark Souls based on how it uses Games for Windows and the irony of that most of them weren't a part of the 100,000 to get the game to be released in the 1st place.

Companies are never in the wrong when its their product and if the "fans" think otherwise then they should go into business in the Gaming Industry or any other medium based industry.  Most of the "fans"  just like to complain and they wouldn't know what to do if they caught that "car" similar to the Joker in the Dark Knight when he got what he wanted.

Dark Souls will have a sequel while the Online worked fine for the game and it sounded like you expected something else.

You're hilarious.  Bandai Namco did not originally market Demon's Souls-Sony did so itself in Japan and they tasked Atlus to distribute and publish it for North America because of all the people importing it from Japan-that was loading up the servers.  Bandai then did so for EU because Atlus did not have a presence there.

Dark Souls drastically changed from Demon's and was not co-created by Sony so was marketed for global distribution using 1 global "server" which was actually multiple global P2P (user's consoles) servers.  The uproar was over the console versions of the game.  The game has an online intensive component that is integrated with SP-players can enter other player's game worlds and help or hinder their progress as well as many other aspects where seamless online play is mandatory.  Bandai totally screwed that up.  For a small game dev like From the outcry was huge and affected every player, but some had it worse than others.  The P2P lobbies made it almost impossible to play online facets at all and the drop off of xbox players was precipitous-PS3 players went away as well whereas Demon's Souls (Atlus) is still being played.

Those are no nitpicks because Dark Souls was way more online intensive that Demon's Souls and it didn't work.  It was further compounded by the patch that broke Japanese players gameplay.  If  they've further screwed it up with the PC version (released after players repeatedly begged them to fix the console game first) then oh well.  It doesn't sound like you played either game or really know anything about it at all, but suffice to say devs are screwing up a lot and players have a right to complain.  As for me I wanted a game that said you could play online to actually work for online play.  That was a major component of all play and it didn't work right. 

Your assertions boil down to that if games don't work or are awful people don't have a right to complain and they should just accept what they get.  Well, that's intellectual.  The vast majority of fans that do complain most likely don't wish to at all.  I never joined here until I was disappointed by this game's ending and I wanted to see how to get something better.  Surprise.  But if I have no right to complain then the same applies to you whenever you buy a product that fails or sucks.  Any product.  A video game is a product like any other and it's our right as consumers to complain.  I don't know what insane world you live in where companies just deserve a pass for creating crummy products, but good luck with that.  The next device you buy with an exploding battery or the next car with failing brakes or the next toaster that just doesn't toast bread or the next DVD you buy that doesn't work is just something the company had every right to sell you.  I'm not saying one is the equal of the other, but money is money.  You may not care about yours and like throwing it in the garbage.  I don't.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Those are just nippicks on Dark Souls even when the game barely changed from Demon to Dark especially when Namco Bandai had the original rights while Atlus translated Demon to the West and owned the Publishing rights in the West.  The small uproar is coming from the PC version of Dark Souls based on how it uses Games for Windows and the irony of that most of them weren't a part of the 100,000 to get the game to be released in the 1st place.

Companies are never in the wrong when its their product and if the "fans" think otherwise then they should go into business in the Gaming Industry or any other medium based industry.  Most of the "fans"  just like to complain and they wouldn't know what to do if they caught that "car" similar to the Joker in the Dark Knight when he got what he wanted.

Dark Souls will have a sequel while the Online worked fine for the game and it sounded like you expected something else.

You're hilarious.  Bandai Namco did not originally market Demon's Souls-Sony did so itself in Japan and they tasked Atlus to distribute and publish it for North America because of all the people importing it from Japan-that was loading up the servers.  Bandai then did so for EU because Atlus did not have a presence there.

Dark Souls drastically changed from Demon's and was not co-created by Sony so was marketed for global distribution using 1 global "server" which was actually multiple global P2P (user's consoles) servers.  The uproar was over the console versions of the game.  The game has an online intensive component that is integrated with SP-players can enter other player's game worlds and help or hinder their progress as well as many other aspects where seamless online play is mandatory.  Bandai totally screwed that up.  For a small game dev like From the outcry was huge and affected every player, but some had it worse than others.  The P2P lobbies made it almost impossible to play online facets at all and the drop off of xbox players was precipitous-PS3 players went away as well whereas Demon's Souls (Atlus) is still being played.

Those are no nitpicks because Dark Souls was way more online intensive that Demon's Souls and it didn't work.  It was further compounded by the patch that broke Japanese players gameplay.  If  they've further screwed it up with the PC version (released after players repeatedly begged them to fix the console game first) then oh well.  It doesn't sound like you played either game or really know anything about it at all, but suffice to say devs are screwing up a lot and players have a right to complain.  As for me I wanted a game that said you could play online to actually work for online play.  That was a major component of all play and it didn't work right. 

Your assertions boil down to that if games don't work or are awful people don't have a right to complain and they should just accept what they get.  Well, that's intellectual.  The vast majority of fans that do complain most likely don't wish to at all.  I never joined here until I was disappointed by this game's ending and I wanted to see how to get something better.  Surprise.  But if I have no right to complain then the same applies to you whenever you buy a product that fails or sucks.  Any product.  A video game is a product like any other and it's our right as consumers to complain.  I don't know what insane world you live in where companies just deserve a pass for creating crummy products, but good luck with that.  The next device you buy with an exploding battery or the next car with failing brakes or the next toaster that just doesn't toast bread or the next DVD you buy that doesn't work is just something the company had every right to sell you.  I'm not saying one is the equal of the other, but money is money.  You may not care about yours and like throwing it in the garbage.  I don't.

its futile to argue with him lol

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

You can have an opinion just like everyone else while everyon deserves respect and remember everyone has their own tastes.  The problem is when people try to turn opinions into facts.

The problem also exists when one asserts that others are not allowed to make any claims that are contrary to what a company now says and are told to ignore what the company previously promised.  The idea seems to be that game devs are sacrosanct even when they routinely break the rules other companies tend to abide by.  It's open season for some on anyone that dares to complain about the inviolate "art" of the video game and yet it's ok for that art to "borrow" from the inviolate intellectual property of other devs' works.  This is so hypocritical and yet, if you enjoy this type of thing then perhaps the next ME if there is one should feature a short guy with a mustache scooting around in a little car while a guy named Master Chief dances with some girls in bikinis that like to play beach volleyball.  If art in video games is now expected and authorized even when it is greatly derivative of others' art then nothing is out of line.  I say the next MMORPG should be created by Activision and be called CoD: Mass Effect where Commander Sheepherder uses biometric powers and has friends of the Kragen, the Atari, the Trurian, and the Gett.  Nothing is off limits and we are not allowed now to complain.

What a load of manure.  The fact is vocal opinions of large segments of a company's best customers (loyal) should matter to them and said customers should have some say especially when promises and even hype is used to garner sales.  It may not be the letter of the law that some things violate but there is intent and it should be applied to every company.

[3DandBeyond]

AresKeith wrote...

its futile to argue with him lol

Right you are!

[Joccaren]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Yet the "holier than thou" generalization mainly comes from the "fans" that also condict themselves by lashing out at every new Bioware game, which happened since Baldur's Gate 2.

Yes, the fans say some reviewers - and even Bioware - are taking a "Holier than Thou" sort of path as they all basically seem to say - or have at some point - that its art, you don't like it - you don't like art - you disagree with them you're wrong because they are right.

And not every fan has lashed out at every new Bioware game. ME1 recieved a relatively good reception. DA:O recieved a relatively good reception. Were flaws pointed out, and did people voice their disappointment that Bioware hadn't created the sort of game they wanted? Yeah. Nowhere near the levels for DA2 and ME3 however, and those two are the two most recent, most rushed and most forced-actiony of the Bioware releases. Get an RPG loving crowd, shove Cinematic Shooter in their face - they're not going to be happy.