354 réponses à ce sujet

[Grubas]

so it was all about storytelling... now Hulk analyse this game with roleplaying in mind. please

[GreyLycanTrope]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The worst part about this is this guy writes film criticism.

He's why the film industry can't have nice things.

Don't worry Casey Hudson will be involved soon enough

[Wayning_Star]

he's infering that all ME fans are "hulk" like, as in: Hulk don't understand puny earth mans video game endings, Hulk smash puny endings. Hulk don't like mass effect, makes Hulk Mad at puny video game!! Don't make Hulk mad, you won't like it when Hulk gets mad!! Change video game to stop Hulk from being mad at puny video game.. Hulk don't understand video games..

etc..

[Taboo]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The worst part about this is this guy writes film criticism.

He's why the film industry can't have nice things.

Don't worry Casey Hudson will be involved soon enough

They'll eat him alive.

It will be terrible to watch though.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The worst part about this is this guy writes film criticism.

He's why the film industry can't have nice things.

Don't worry Casey Hudson will be involved soon enough

They'll eat him alive.

It will be terrible to watch though.

Art doesn't alway make one happy

[Volc19]

ld1449 wrote...

I personally disagree with the review however. Symbolism is subtle, this symbolism we see in the ending of ME3 is shoehorned in there like a square in a round shaped hole.

Furthermore, while Symbolism in literature is praiseworthy, its only praiseworthy when the symbolism is a cherry over a delicious desert. A bonus, not necessary to enjoy the desert itself.

Mass Effect 3's symbolism gives you nothing but the cherry, and you must imagine the desert.

I think of it more as a situation where you enter an icecream parlor, intending to get a sundae. Upon entering the parlor, a giant cherry that popped into the universe through quantum fluctuations, against all probability, comes flying into the your face. The cherry is destroyed on impact, and is, in fact, full of mustard. There is no reason beyond the laws of probability why the cherry started existing, flew at you, or was full of mustard. You are left speculating as to why what just happened occured, left with more questions than answers and a craving for a proper sundae.

Modifié par Volc19, 07 août 2012 - 03:27 .

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

That whole review was dumb. The structure and everything. This HULK guy is nothing and yes I tried to keep open minded but I'm sorry, if your supposed to be a professorial critic, you don't say

F*** THIS GUY. F*** HIM IN HIS BIG STUPID FACE. THIS GUY IS PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING WRONG WITH OUR CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE IN SOCIETY. PLUS HE IS WRONG IN JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING HE SAYS.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you should talk like that. And like 4 times in the article he just blindly states "YOU ARE ALL WRONG" without any proof, even in the quote above he simply idiotically shouts that the other person is wrong for disagreeing with him. This HULK guy needs help. And he is a terrible reviewer and nothing even remotely close to being a professional.

[Jonata]

It seems that the most popular critic about ME3 endings is the fact that the main theme of the trilogy can be debated. Actually I think Film Crit Hulk might have a point when he says that sometimes, the purpose of Art can be to shoehorn that theme into the head of the viewers.

I suggest you to read his other article about art, videogames and Call of Duty (also linked in the OP) to understand what he is actually saying when he compares Mass Effect 3 to Citizen Kane: he said that videogames needed a game brave enough to make the theme, the message under the storytelling, to be prominent enough to even overcome the "INDULGENT NATURE OF GAMES".

Like Hulk says, if a game give us what we want he's not sending a message, so it cannot be considered art. Sending a particular message without giving us what we want is what the ME3 Ending does, and that, at least, cannot be denied.

[Peranor]

Volc19 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

I personally disagree with the review however. Symbolism is subtle, this symbolism we see in the ending of ME3 is shoehorned in there like a square in a round shaped hole.

Furthermore, while Symbolism in literature is praiseworthy, its only praiseworthy when the symbolism is a cherry over a delicious desert. A bonus, not necessary to enjoy the desert itself.

Mass Effect 3's symbolism gives you nothing but the cherry, and you must imagine the desert.

I think of it more as a situation where you enter an icecream parlor, intending to get a sundae. Upon entering the parlor, a giant cherry that popped into the universe through quantum fluctuations, against all probability, comes flying into the your face. The cherry is destroyed on impact, and is, in fact, full of mustard. There is no reason beyond the laws of probability why the cherry started existing, flew at you, or was full of mustard. You are left speculating as to why what just happened occured, left with more questions than answers and a craving for a proper sundae.

Lol 

[krukow]

"WELL BECAUSE OF THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEN IN THE END THE FUROR OVER THE ORIGINAL ENDINGS PROMPTED MASS EFFECT 3 TO RELEASE EXTENDED ENDINGS WHERE THEY SIMPLY TACK ON MORE IMAGERY EXPLAINING IN MORE DETAIL EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALREADY EXPLAINED"

Actually, no, they retconned a ton of stuff in the destroy ending to make it palatable. They changed A LOT about that ending. Which is why it doesn't suck now.

I mean, I get that his gimmick is to write in caps because he's "HULK" and I tried to give this a chance, but if he thinks what happens in the EC is the same as what happens in the original, then he's just not paying attention.

Sigh...

[Link Ashland 614]

Nice to see you guys still respect people's opinion. Can't imagine what would happen if you didn't.

[Mourandur]

Well it was a good review, as many have said wish that long conversation was in my copy of the game. But it is a legitimate review, and exactly what I would expect from an "art" critic of film and literature. Indeed all his points are very valid, but if that was the intent of the writing it was very poorly done, I have started a another play through an I am paying very close attention to the conversations.

I must agree that early on the developers start getting everyone you can talk to going negative, to the point where I feel like Shep is the only ray of light going.

That being said they way the ending was presented seems to me like a bad attempt at Lovecraft, for those of you who have not read any pretty simple concept, great alien evil, mankind always loses, no matter what they try across the stories.

Now that is simplistic to the height of silly, but perhaps that is where the writing in ME 3 failed trying too hard to make it understandable to wide range of ages. Instead of biting the bullet and accepting that younger players might miss the point, build that beautiful complex narrative the reviewer spoke of.

Make the players think hard and have an actual conversation at the end, make all the hard work mean something.

Modifié par Mourandur, 07 août 2012 - 03:35 .

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Link Ashland 614 wrote...

Nice to see you guys still respect people's opinion. Can't imagine what would happen if you didn't.

Your talking to the BSN crowd? Read the review this "HULK" guy as absolutely no respect for anybody's opinion but his own!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Jonata wrote...

I suggest you to read his other article about art, videogames and Call of Duty (also linked in the OP) to understand what he is actually saying when he compares Mass Effect 3 to Citizen Kane: he said that videogames needed a game brave enough to make the theme, the message under the storytelling, to be prominent enough to even overcome the "INDULGENT NATURE OF GAMES".

Like Hulk says, if a game give us what we want he's not sending a message, so it cannot be considered art. Sending a particular message without giving us what we want is what the ME3 Ending does, and that, at least, cannot be denied.

This in my opinion is actually the best argument against what Mass Effect 3 attempts to accomplish. If art is what Hulk suggests, I don't want it in my films, music, or games, if the end result resembles what Mass Effect 3 gave us.

The mediums which are often dubbed art are indulgent by their very natures. Films are often expected to include a love interest to appeal to the audience, comic book writers are sometimes restricted from killing certain characters in telling a story, painters are commissioned to make certain pictures, so on and so forth. If Hulk's only real point is that a game needs to be made which ignores the desires of the audience, well ME3 might just be an example. It might also be an incredibly weak method of closing a trilogy.  

[DRTJR]

I have to say I disagree with him on a fundamental level, and as such I believe he is in fact incorrect. The Citizen Kane analogy I think is not only wrong but dead wrong. Citizen Kane is a work that is only as powerful as it is BECAUSE it is a movie. AND it was a great story to begin with. Mass Effect 3's ending was highly illogical and under explained.

[Ticonderoga117]

BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T DO IT FOR YOU IN THAT SAME EMOTIONAL WAY AS IT DID FOR HULK, THERE IS NO DENYING THAT THE ENDING IS A SINGLE, ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND PURE EXPRESSION OF THE CREATORS.

You have got to be kidding me.
There is no way someone can write that with a straight face.
I cannot take this person seriously at all now. Sorry.

[DRTJR]

I wonder if he knows test audiences exist? because they bend and warp the "Artistic vision of the Creator" like in Wrath of Khan with Spock's casket ending up on the Genesis planet. the original ending sucked, as such as consumers we utilized our right to launch reasonable complaints against the creators.

[D24O]

Let me get this right, is he saying that because the game is trying to send a message, that qualifies it as art? I understand that point, but I think the parts of the game that actually ask you a question and don't just talk down to you were stronger, and more thought provoking than the end sequence. Granted they give you an idea of what they think is right (Tuchunka, curing the genophage/Rannoch, it seems that they wanted to show that synthetics are valid, but with Synthesis, I don;t know) but they ultimately leave that up to the player to decide. I think that the interactive nature of video games allow for more of a give and take with the author, a discussion, and just having a segment where the game pontificates to you is not using the medium to its fullest potential IMO.

[Gruntburner]

This thread is going is exactly as I predicted. Everybody, to the lifeboats!

[D24O]

Gruntburner wrote...

This thread is going is exactly as I predicted. Everybody, to the lifeboats!

Oh child, it has hardly begun. This is kid stuff, no floods of images or quote pyramids. This could be a LOT worse.

[DEATHSCOPE]

He refers to himself in the third person.. and writes like he is yelling... I think that's why he called himself "Hulk".

[codename2o2]

This is why film critics shouldn't critique video games.

[Kabraxal]

Volc19 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

I personally disagree with the review however. Symbolism is subtle, this symbolism we see in the ending of ME3 is shoehorned in there like a square in a round shaped hole.

Furthermore, while Symbolism in literature is praiseworthy, its only praiseworthy when the symbolism is a cherry over a delicious desert. A bonus, not necessary to enjoy the desert itself.

Mass Effect 3's symbolism gives you nothing but the cherry, and you must imagine the desert.

I think of it more as a situation where you enter an icecream parlor, intending to get a sundae. Upon entering the parlor, a giant cherry that popped into the universe through quantum fluctuations, against all probability, comes flying into the your face. The cherry is destroyed on impact, and is, in fact, full of mustard. There is no reason beyond the laws of probability why the cherry started existing, flew at you, or was full of mustard. You are left speculating as to why what just happened occured, left with more questions than answers and a craving for a proper sundae.

This is perfect... too bad many critics are too self absorbed and screaming about entitled gamers that simply wanted the conclusion to mesh with teh universe, not suddenly explode with mustard as you say.  

[Jonata]

xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...

That whole review was dumb. The structure and everything. This HULK guy is nothing and yes I tried to keep open minded but I'm sorry, if your supposed to be a professorial critic, you don't say

F*** THIS GUY. F*** HIM IN HIS BIG STUPID FACE. THIS GUY IS PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING WRONG WITH OUR CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE IN SOCIETY. PLUS HE IS WRONG IN JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING HE SAYS.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you should talk like that. And like 4 times in the article he just blindly states "YOU ARE ALL WRONG" without any proof, even in the quote above he simply idiotically shouts that the other person is wrong for disagreeing with him. This HULK guy needs help. And he is a terrible reviewer and nothing even remotely close to being a professional.

I follow his reviews since a couple of months ago and I can assure you he's not the kind of critic that simply tell a guy to "f*** off" and it's done. Read the article: he actually explain why he's behaving/writing like that. One of his very first article on that site, "NEVER HATE A MOVIE", was exactly about why "f*** this/f*** that" reviews should never be written by true critics.

If he's saying so it's because he's really upset about storytelling being used the way it is used in videogames and about the fundamental arrogance of that video. And he not only politely say thate he do not want to offend anyone (except from the guy making that video) but actually explain each and every of his word. To say that his article do not have "any proof" is simply wrong. Read it again.

codename2o2 wrote...

This is why film critics shouldn't critique video games.

 

The fact that he is a film crit doesn't mean he never played a videogame. He did podcasts and wrote many articles about videogames. He surely knows what he's talking about. Sometimes I wonder if we can say the same thing about people like "Angry Joe".

Modifié par Jonata, 07 août 2012 - 04:41 .