It seems that my theory is proven correct. Whenever a "critic" likes something, I won't, and when they don't like something, I will.
Lesson learned. Don't preorder, and whatever a "critic" says about a game, I'll know that I'll have the opposite opinion.
If this "HULK" wants to be taken seriously, he should stop typing in all caps and put forth coherant reasons as to how he reached his conclusions. People need to stop critiquing video games like movies (and movies like books). The reason symbolism can work in movies (as he mentions) is that they are at most, 3 hours of your time. When you put 100+ hours into a video game, you're going to want a bit more satisfaction and closure at the end.
Film Crit HULK finally writes a column about ME3 ENDINGS
Débuté par
Jonata
, août 07 2012 02:18
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 07 août 2012 - 04:45
Skaldian
-
- Members
- 129 messages
So Mass Effect is both about breaking cycles and restarting cycles? I totally didn't get that when I played it. I guess I see the trees but not the forest.
Now multi-player makes sense, too. It's very cyclical.
Now multi-player makes sense, too. It's very cyclical.
#53
Posté 07 août 2012 - 04:47
Greed1914
-
- Members
- 2 638 messages
Grubas wrote...
so it was all about storytelling... now Hulk analyse this game with roleplaying in mind. please
Roleplaying? You make it sound like this was supposed to be a game that focused on the players' choices with an ultimate payoff at the end. Oh wait...
#54
Posté 07 août 2012 - 04:49
mjb203
-
- Members
- 499 messages
Skaldian wrote...
So Mass Effect is both about breaking cycles and restarting cycles? I totally didn't get that when I played it. I guess I see the trees but not the forest.
Now multi-player makes sense, too. It's very cyclical.
I totally didn't get that either. The theme I got was "overcoming seemingly impossible odds". Because, you know, the whole, "You can't get to Ilos" deal and "SUICIDE MISSION!!! YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE PEOPLE" stuff from the first two and then coming out (more than likely) without a scratch.
#55
Posté 07 août 2012 - 04:51
Kyazain
-
- Members
- 137 messages
I think the Citizen Kane comparison was flawed. The reason why Citizen Kane wasn't initially successful was because the movie was ahead of its time. The movie was darker and more serious than most movies of its time; as well as its use of mise-en-scene, which wasn't very common. Citizen Kane helped shape film making as we all know and love today.
The ME3 ending wasn't ahead of its time nor revolutionary. It uses cliched themes and tries to cover it up with psuedo-intellectual bull****. As well as throwing in additional convoluted nonsense (symbolism) to make things appear more artistic.
The ME3 ending wasn't ahead of its time nor revolutionary. It uses cliched themes and tries to cover it up with psuedo-intellectual bull****. As well as throwing in additional convoluted nonsense (symbolism) to make things appear more artistic.
#56
Posté 07 août 2012 - 04:52
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 349 messages
Greed1914 wrote...
Roleplaying? You make it sound like this was supposed to be a game that focused on the players' choices with an ultimate payoff at the end. Oh wait...
Choices and payoff??
:lol:
#57
Posté 07 août 2012 - 04:56
Obadiah
-
- Members
- 5 737 messages
That article was great. Couldn't agree more.
#59
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:01
Jonata
-
- Members
- 2 269 messages
Kyazain wrote...
I think the Citizen Kane comparison was flawed. The reason why Citizen Kane wasn't initially successful was because the movie was ahead of its time. The movie was darker and more serious than most movies of its time; as well as its use of mise-en-scene, which wasn't very common. Citizen Kane helped shape film making as we all know and love today.
The ME3 ending wasn't ahead of its time nor revolutionary. It uses cliched themes and tries to cover it up with psuedo-intellectual bull****. As well as throwing in additional convoluted nonsense (symbolism) to make things appear more artistic.
Again, read the other article linked in the OP if you want to get that reference. He compared Mass Effect 3 to the Citizen Kane of videogames, not to "Citizen Kane" as a movie. Basically he's saying that Mass Effect 3 has some qualities that can show how to fit art inside videogames, just like Citizen Kane showed the way to new achievements for future movies.
His major points, IIRC, are that 1) Mass Effect 3's ending is completely focused on the meaning, the "purpose" of the telling, and thus provide less indulgence in order to say something in its own way and 2) ME3 used the videogame media as a mean to achieve art in a way that never before was done.
He also said that Heavy Rain was too much of a movie to be considered "videogame art" (if anything, it's a great movie), so you pretty much get the message: ME3 tried something new, valuable as a movie, without actually making a movie but using the means of the videogames world.
#60
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:05
Torrible
-
- Members
- 1 224 messages
BECAUSE HULK TAKES THIS STUFF SO VERY SERIOUSLY. YOU REQUESTED A COLUMN IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE HULK CARES ABOUT / LOVES STORIES AND WHAT YOU DIDN'T REALIZE IS THAT WITH YOUR RAGE WITH THE ENDING, YOU ACTUALLY WANT THE DEATH OF STORYTELLING. SERIOUSLY. YOU ASKED HULK TO RAIL AGAINST SOMETHING THAT OFFERS GORGEOUS STORYTELLING, SO REALLY YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT IT WAS BAD AT VIDEO GAME INDULGENCE. SO HULK JUST HAS TO SURMISE THAT YOU DON'T ACTUALLY WANT STORIES AFTER ALL. PERHAPS YOU WANT TO BE LIKE THE PERSON IN THE VIDEO ABOVE, SCREAMING ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE "OWED" LIKE SOME SELFISH MALCONTENT. YOU WANT TO BE INDULGED. YOU WANT OPTIONS. YOU WANT GLUTTONY. WE HAVE A WORD FOR THAT KIND OF VIDEO ENTERTAINMENT AND IT'S CALLED PORNOGRAPHY. AND IT'S PERFECT AT SATISFYING YOUR EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL IMPULSES SO HAVE AT IT.
IF YOU WANT MASS EFFECT TO BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE CANON OF ART, THEN YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT ULTIMATELY THE STORYTELLING ELEMENT IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE INDULGENT NATURE OF VIDEO GAMES. YOU HAVE TO EMBRACE THE NON-INDULGENT PURPOSE OF ART. AND YOU HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH IT. YOU HAVE TO STRIVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PRESENTED WHEN WHAT IS PRESENTED IS THIS THEMATICALLY COHERENT AND BEAUTIFUL. YOU HAVE TO STRIVE FOR IT. IT'S THE ONLY WAY THE MEDIUM CAN MOVE FORWARD.
Absolutely love this guy. Admittedly, I'm not a long time follower of his but I've thoroughly enjoyed (and agreed with) his articles on John Carter, Batman, The Avengers and Community. Not surprisingly, his Batman article reminded of the ending saga.
http://badassdigest....t-about-batman/
Another article about storytelling:
http://badassdigest....-carter-script/
#61
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:14
dorktainian
-
- Members
- 4 415 messages
it's like a recuring ****slap.
trying to critique mass effect 3 is almost pointless. the whole story structure is wrong. you may find people who look upon it as art. they are wrong. it is a product. a product designed to make a company money. that company dropped the ball big style. yet we are told by representatives of said company that we are wrong. it is art. it is deep and meaningful.
I say no. It is a poor ending. You want to call that art Bioware? Good luck with that one.
Seriously a young child could have come up with a better and more coherent ending.
trying to critique mass effect 3 is almost pointless. the whole story structure is wrong. you may find people who look upon it as art. they are wrong. it is a product. a product designed to make a company money. that company dropped the ball big style. yet we are told by representatives of said company that we are wrong. it is art. it is deep and meaningful.
I say no. It is a poor ending. You want to call that art Bioware? Good luck with that one.
Seriously a young child could have come up with a better and more coherent ending.
#62
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:23
J.Random
-
- Members
- 167 messages
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.
Do you have digital watches? It may be important. Also, don't forget your towel.
#63
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:34
sUiCiDeKiNgS13
-
- Members
- 647 messages
Now I know why I've never heard of this guy.
#64
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:40
xsdob
-
- Members
- 8 575 messages
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 sayF*** 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.
Right, you should dismiss him, any possibility that he may have some valid points, call his writing style stupid, and than post endless things of "wut?" and that he simply doesn't "get it"
like what people in the thread are doing.
Also, from your example, you should insinuate that a person is mentally disturbed and that they are nothing.
Modifié par xsdob, 07 août 2012 - 05:48 .
#65
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:43
Big I
-
- Members
- 2 883 messages
First of all, this guy doesn't get the science fiction genre. While it may be appropriate to view works of other genres purely upon the symbolism in them, sci-fi is about more than the image of synthesis EDI and Joker starting a new society upon Eden. It's about the mechanics of how that happens.
Sci fi is about logical extrapolation. What if intelligent robots existed? How would that change human society and our views of what constitutes consciousness and personhood? You can use the same premise to craft a story heavy on symbolism that explores the hubris of mankind and how we create our own monsters, but it's the difference between Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and the works of Isaac Asimov.
This Hulk reviewer is basically saying that he enjoyed the original ending because it allowed him to re-evaluate the story of the trilogy as being about the cyclical nature of human existence, and he thought that was a great story. He didn't think it important to focus on the story elements that dealt with human technological advance, interacting with other cultures, how people react when confronted with an extinction level event, or simply how war affects those caught up in it. To me, THOSE things are the core of the story, and by ignoring them he's doing exactly what he accuses everyone else of and missing the point.
This reviewer obviously didn't care that the original ending didn't explain how the victory fleet got home with the relays destroyed or how Tali and Garrus survived without food or rescue. Maybe an ending that glosses over so many details is acceptable in other genres, but in genres like sci fi or the mystery genre, types of storytelling where the point is to answer the questions you raise, doing so is simply bad storytelling.
Sci fi is about logical extrapolation. What if intelligent robots existed? How would that change human society and our views of what constitutes consciousness and personhood? You can use the same premise to craft a story heavy on symbolism that explores the hubris of mankind and how we create our own monsters, but it's the difference between Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and the works of Isaac Asimov.
This Hulk reviewer is basically saying that he enjoyed the original ending because it allowed him to re-evaluate the story of the trilogy as being about the cyclical nature of human existence, and he thought that was a great story. He didn't think it important to focus on the story elements that dealt with human technological advance, interacting with other cultures, how people react when confronted with an extinction level event, or simply how war affects those caught up in it. To me, THOSE things are the core of the story, and by ignoring them he's doing exactly what he accuses everyone else of and missing the point.
This reviewer obviously didn't care that the original ending didn't explain how the victory fleet got home with the relays destroyed or how Tali and Garrus survived without food or rescue. Maybe an ending that glosses over so many details is acceptable in other genres, but in genres like sci fi or the mystery genre, types of storytelling where the point is to answer the questions you raise, doing so is simply bad storytelling.
#66
Guest_ajb314_*
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:46
Guest_ajb314_*
Guest_ajb314_*
-
- Guests
I've never posted anything about ME3 before on the BSN or elsewhere. Hulk's article made me do it for the first time. I am reposting the message I left there on this thread. Hope you find it a good read:
Let
me begin by saying that I have not, at any point during this mass effect
debacle, chosen to add my voice to the arguments on either side. As only a
'part-time gamer' I rarely find myself invested in a video game to such a
degree that it particularly mattered to me what the gaming community was
saying. That being said, I have followed the debates about the ending to Mass
Effect 3 very closely. I suppose the term that would be applied to me by the
masses online would be a "lurker". And despite the ugly connotation
that sometimes goes along with this label, I think it is a fitting description.
I have chosen to speak up at this point for one simple reason. This article was
the first time I read a defense of the ME3 ending that made any sense. Simply
stated, this article was marvelous. You have accomplished here what nobody else
has managed to do and offered me a possible (and logical) view of what the
developers at Bioware had in mind during the creation of this video gaming
opus.
It is clear to me that you have an understanding of both the Mass Effect lore
and of the subtle yet complex nuances that make storytelling a true art form.
As an instructor of history and a professional storyteller in my own right, I
appreciate this.
In many ways this article hits the nail on the head. I find the idea that the
developers tried to send a clear message on the nature of cycles and harmony
within our existence to be a fascinating viewpoint . I further agree that the
idea that we 'needed' a few cut-scenes to reveal the fates of our allies is
ludicrous. Your notion that the ENTIRE GAME is a single 30-hour goodbye is
something I truly believe as well. As the original endings all share a number
of blatant similarities, one must assume they were created with a purpose.
There must have been an overarching and central theme that the developers
wished to convey and these endings are the proof. Furthermore, I find the
idea of demanding a 'better' ending to be both foolish and entitled. I must
add, however, that I find nothing wrong with a fan base ASKING for a story that
more suits their wants. Many of the most vocal critics of the ending have
correctly pointed out that some artists, particularly storytellers, have
answered the call of the fans to change or amend a work of fiction (see Charles
Dickens in his serialized tales or Ridley Scott's reworked Blade Runner).
Despite the insight this article has provided, I am sad to say it does not help
me enjoy the ending of Mass Effect. It seems to me that there is one
fundamental element of this narrative that the developers clearly lost sight of
in the game's final moments. And if I may be so bold, your article does not
make mention of it either. In my view, the game developers lost sight of the
medium in which they chose to tell their story.
Unlike 'Psycho', 'Close Encounters' or the oft-cited "Harry Potter'
epilogue, Mass Effect allows a much greater level of fan interaction within the
rising and falling actions of the narrative. We are not sitting beyond the
fourth wall, hoping that things will work out the way we want. Instead we
participate in the events of the story from behind the eyes of the story's
protagonist. Each of us, in our own way, assumes the identity of Commander
Shepard and chooses to craft the narrative in the way we see fit. By
contrast, I have watched Norman Bates don the wig and dress 100 times but have
never felt that my own sense of right and wrong could stop him from entering
that bathroom.
Now there are, of course, limitations to this interactivity. The developers
have provided only a finite set of variables from which the gamer may choose.
In this way, the developers maintain control over the ultimate direction the
story will take. But the implication behind the series has always been that
given the sheer number of choices available, there are numerous ways that the
subtle nuance of the narrative might play out. Even still, this is not the most
glaring problem of losing sight of the video game medium.
In the final moments of ME3, Commander Shepard will emerge victorious.
Regardless of how the gamer chose to play the game the Reapers are defeated the
cycle of genocide ends. Regardless if played as a paragon or a renegade, if
each and every mission is completed or every side mission is skipped in order
to reach the game's finale, the game will end with a win. Some of these
victories come at terrible cost and others come with more 'acceptable' losses.
But in every instance, whether Shepard lives or dies, the narrative ends
through victory. Indeed, there are multiple instances throughout the journey
where victories occur. Peace can be brokered between the Geth and the Quarians,
The Krogan can be saved and permitted to grow again as a civilization and EDI
can be guided down a path that allows her to discover her soul. That being
said, it seems to me that the developers forgot that the goal of a video game
must be to win. In the case of a video game, fans are not looking for a
satisfying or artistic ending to the narrative. They are looking for a way to
WIN THE GAME.
Mass Effect is a video game. Until the final sequence of ME3, the developers
offer players an opportunity to overcome and vanquish an unbeatable enemy and
to live to tell the tale. Through the first two games and most of ME3, EVERY
obstacle we encounter can be overcome. In ME1 we destroy the most dangerous
spaceship in existence. In ME2 we literally survive a suicide mission and have
the potential to allow our crew to do the same. The premise itself of living
through these events tells the gamer that there is hope to achieve the most
unlikely (and occasionally ridiculous) outcomes. Through more than 100 hours of
game play, it is implied to the gamer that total victory is not, in fact,
impossible but only highly improbable. When reading a book or watching a movie,
an intelligent fan will understand the ending to the narrative lies completely
out of their hands. If the main character dies despite our sincerest hopes, we
must accept that we never had the chance to influence the outcome in the first
place.
Through my hundreds of ours in the Mass Effect universe, I always felt that
there would be a scenario that allowed for the Reapers to be defeated, Shepard
to survive, my crew to be reunited and the galaxy to attain its 'happily ever
after'. Let me be clear...I am imagined there would be ONE scenario in which
all of this was possible. That is the reason that I spent so much time
agonizing over the choices I made throughout the series. I realized that a
single mistake, even a seemingly minor one, might be my undoing. Should I have
saved the Rachni Queen in ME1? Should I have finished all the loyalty missions in
ME2? Should I have allowed the Quarians to annihilate the Geth in ME3? I
believed that since Mass Effect was always, at its core, a video game, if I
completed each action perfectly, if I made the 'correct' decision at each turn
of events, there must be a way for me to truly 'win' the game.
Alas, the endings of ME3 did not allow for this chance. Regardless of my game
play, there is no sequence of events or choices that permits a 'video game
win'. If in those final, heart-wrenching moments I had been told, "Sorry
Shepard but you needed the Geth to beat me" or "You know that Rachni
Queen you killed? She held the key to your victory" I would have been
satisfied. I could have accepted that a flaw in my logic, my character, or my
sense of good and evil had been the cause of my 'incomplete' win. And maybe
more importantly, I would have played the game again and made different
choices. But to be told that I, as Shepard, never really controlled the outcome
of the narrative makes ME3 a flawed video game.
As I have already prattled on too long and I feel a headache creeping in behind
my eye, I will leave you with this thought. A tragic hero is such because he is
unable to overcome a failing within his character. There lies within the tragic
hero, a flaw that prohibits the possibility of achieving a truly happy ending.
This character flaw will inevitably be the demise of the tragic hero. For my
part, I never discovered this flaw in Shepard. I apologize for the length of
this post. I only hope it is as enlightening for you as your article was for
me.
Let
me begin by saying that I have not, at any point during this mass effect
debacle, chosen to add my voice to the arguments on either side. As only a
'part-time gamer' I rarely find myself invested in a video game to such a
degree that it particularly mattered to me what the gaming community was
saying. That being said, I have followed the debates about the ending to Mass
Effect 3 very closely. I suppose the term that would be applied to me by the
masses online would be a "lurker". And despite the ugly connotation
that sometimes goes along with this label, I think it is a fitting description.
I have chosen to speak up at this point for one simple reason. This article was
the first time I read a defense of the ME3 ending that made any sense. Simply
stated, this article was marvelous. You have accomplished here what nobody else
has managed to do and offered me a possible (and logical) view of what the
developers at Bioware had in mind during the creation of this video gaming
opus.
It is clear to me that you have an understanding of both the Mass Effect lore
and of the subtle yet complex nuances that make storytelling a true art form.
As an instructor of history and a professional storyteller in my own right, I
appreciate this.
In many ways this article hits the nail on the head. I find the idea that the
developers tried to send a clear message on the nature of cycles and harmony
within our existence to be a fascinating viewpoint . I further agree that the
idea that we 'needed' a few cut-scenes to reveal the fates of our allies is
ludicrous. Your notion that the ENTIRE GAME is a single 30-hour goodbye is
something I truly believe as well. As the original endings all share a number
of blatant similarities, one must assume they were created with a purpose.
There must have been an overarching and central theme that the developers
wished to convey and these endings are the proof. Furthermore, I find the
idea of demanding a 'better' ending to be both foolish and entitled. I must
add, however, that I find nothing wrong with a fan base ASKING for a story that
more suits their wants. Many of the most vocal critics of the ending have
correctly pointed out that some artists, particularly storytellers, have
answered the call of the fans to change or amend a work of fiction (see Charles
Dickens in his serialized tales or Ridley Scott's reworked Blade Runner).
Despite the insight this article has provided, I am sad to say it does not help
me enjoy the ending of Mass Effect. It seems to me that there is one
fundamental element of this narrative that the developers clearly lost sight of
in the game's final moments. And if I may be so bold, your article does not
make mention of it either. In my view, the game developers lost sight of the
medium in which they chose to tell their story.
Unlike 'Psycho', 'Close Encounters' or the oft-cited "Harry Potter'
epilogue, Mass Effect allows a much greater level of fan interaction within the
rising and falling actions of the narrative. We are not sitting beyond the
fourth wall, hoping that things will work out the way we want. Instead we
participate in the events of the story from behind the eyes of the story's
protagonist. Each of us, in our own way, assumes the identity of Commander
Shepard and chooses to craft the narrative in the way we see fit. By
contrast, I have watched Norman Bates don the wig and dress 100 times but have
never felt that my own sense of right and wrong could stop him from entering
that bathroom.
Now there are, of course, limitations to this interactivity. The developers
have provided only a finite set of variables from which the gamer may choose.
In this way, the developers maintain control over the ultimate direction the
story will take. But the implication behind the series has always been that
given the sheer number of choices available, there are numerous ways that the
subtle nuance of the narrative might play out. Even still, this is not the most
glaring problem of losing sight of the video game medium.
In the final moments of ME3, Commander Shepard will emerge victorious.
Regardless of how the gamer chose to play the game the Reapers are defeated the
cycle of genocide ends. Regardless if played as a paragon or a renegade, if
each and every mission is completed or every side mission is skipped in order
to reach the game's finale, the game will end with a win. Some of these
victories come at terrible cost and others come with more 'acceptable' losses.
But in every instance, whether Shepard lives or dies, the narrative ends
through victory. Indeed, there are multiple instances throughout the journey
where victories occur. Peace can be brokered between the Geth and the Quarians,
The Krogan can be saved and permitted to grow again as a civilization and EDI
can be guided down a path that allows her to discover her soul. That being
said, it seems to me that the developers forgot that the goal of a video game
must be to win. In the case of a video game, fans are not looking for a
satisfying or artistic ending to the narrative. They are looking for a way to
WIN THE GAME.
Mass Effect is a video game. Until the final sequence of ME3, the developers
offer players an opportunity to overcome and vanquish an unbeatable enemy and
to live to tell the tale. Through the first two games and most of ME3, EVERY
obstacle we encounter can be overcome. In ME1 we destroy the most dangerous
spaceship in existence. In ME2 we literally survive a suicide mission and have
the potential to allow our crew to do the same. The premise itself of living
through these events tells the gamer that there is hope to achieve the most
unlikely (and occasionally ridiculous) outcomes. Through more than 100 hours of
game play, it is implied to the gamer that total victory is not, in fact,
impossible but only highly improbable. When reading a book or watching a movie,
an intelligent fan will understand the ending to the narrative lies completely
out of their hands. If the main character dies despite our sincerest hopes, we
must accept that we never had the chance to influence the outcome in the first
place.
Through my hundreds of ours in the Mass Effect universe, I always felt that
there would be a scenario that allowed for the Reapers to be defeated, Shepard
to survive, my crew to be reunited and the galaxy to attain its 'happily ever
after'. Let me be clear...I am imagined there would be ONE scenario in which
all of this was possible. That is the reason that I spent so much time
agonizing over the choices I made throughout the series. I realized that a
single mistake, even a seemingly minor one, might be my undoing. Should I have
saved the Rachni Queen in ME1? Should I have finished all the loyalty missions in
ME2? Should I have allowed the Quarians to annihilate the Geth in ME3? I
believed that since Mass Effect was always, at its core, a video game, if I
completed each action perfectly, if I made the 'correct' decision at each turn
of events, there must be a way for me to truly 'win' the game.
Alas, the endings of ME3 did not allow for this chance. Regardless of my game
play, there is no sequence of events or choices that permits a 'video game
win'. If in those final, heart-wrenching moments I had been told, "Sorry
Shepard but you needed the Geth to beat me" or "You know that Rachni
Queen you killed? She held the key to your victory" I would have been
satisfied. I could have accepted that a flaw in my logic, my character, or my
sense of good and evil had been the cause of my 'incomplete' win. And maybe
more importantly, I would have played the game again and made different
choices. But to be told that I, as Shepard, never really controlled the outcome
of the narrative makes ME3 a flawed video game.
As I have already prattled on too long and I feel a headache creeping in behind
my eye, I will leave you with this thought. A tragic hero is such because he is
unable to overcome a failing within his character. There lies within the tragic
hero, a flaw that prohibits the possibility of achieving a truly happy ending.
This character flaw will inevitably be the demise of the tragic hero. For my
part, I never discovered this flaw in Shepard. I apologize for the length of
this post. I only hope it is as enlightening for you as your article was for
me.
#67
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:52
Torrible
-
- Members
- 1 224 messages
mjb203 wrote...
It seems that my theory is proven correct. Whenever a "critic" likes something, I won't, and when they don't like something, I will.
Lesson learned. Don't preorder, and whatever a "critic" says about a game, I'll know that I'll have the opposite opinion.
If this "HULK" wants to be taken seriously, he should stop typing in all caps and put forth coherant reasons as to how he reached his conclusions. People need to stop critiquing video games like movies (and movies like books). The reason symbolism can work in movies (as he mentions) is that they are at most, 3 hours of your time. When you put 100+ hours into a video game, you're going to want a bit more satisfaction and closure at the end.
He did put forth coherent reasons. Maybe your dislike for the ending and negative preconceptions about people typing in all caps prevented you from seeing that. For months now, people here having been bashing the ending and unfairly comparing it to great narratives in classic films and books. Yet when it comes to symbolism, ME3 is somehow not afforded the same leeway as that of those books and movies? How the hell is Bioware going to satisfy people like you?
Modifié par Torrible, 07 août 2012 - 05:54 .
#68
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:57
Big I
-
- Members
- 2 883 messages
This reviewer also seems to devalue works that don't make people uncomfortable or question themselves. It seems that to him works that explore familiar themes and stories aren't worth sitting through.
I disagree completely. On that logic something like the works of Arthur Conan Doyle or Dashell Hammett would be without merit. Consider that Sherlock Holmes and Sam Spade never change significantly as characters. They go through no life changing epiphanies, form no new extraordinary relationships with other characters, and are essentially the same character in their last story as they are in their first. That doesn't mean those stories and characters are without artistic merit.
To me Hercule Poirot and Harry Potter are as important as Winston Smith from 1984 or Guy Montag from Fahrenheit 451.
I disagree completely. On that logic something like the works of Arthur Conan Doyle or Dashell Hammett would be without merit. Consider that Sherlock Holmes and Sam Spade never change significantly as characters. They go through no life changing epiphanies, form no new extraordinary relationships with other characters, and are essentially the same character in their last story as they are in their first. That doesn't mean those stories and characters are without artistic merit.
To me Hercule Poirot and Harry Potter are as important as Winston Smith from 1984 or Guy Montag from Fahrenheit 451.
Modifié par LookingGlass93, 07 août 2012 - 05:59 .
#69
Posté 07 août 2012 - 05:59
NS Wizdum
-
- Members
- 577 messages
I can kind of see where he is coming from. The idea behind the Mass Effect 3 ending was not bad. It just didn't feel like Mass Effect. It would have been an appropriate ending for any other game.
#70
Posté 07 août 2012 - 06:09
Torrible
-
- Members
- 1 224 messages
ajb314 wrote...
Through my hundreds of ours in the Mass Effect universe, I always felt thatthere would be a scenario that allowed for the Reapers to be defeated, Shepardto survive, my crew to be reunited and the galaxy to attain its 'happily everafter'. Let me be clear...I am imagined there would be ONE scenario in whichall of this was possible. That is the reason that I spent so much timeagonizing over the choices I made throughout the series. I realized that asingle mistake, even a seemingly minor one, might be my undoing. Should I havesaved the Rachni Queen in ME1? Should I have finished all the loyalty missions inME2? Should I have allowed the Quarians to annihilate the Geth in ME3? Ibelieved that since Mass Effect was always, at its core, a video game, if Icompleted each action perfectly, if I made the 'correct' decision at each turnof events, there must be a way for me to truly 'win' the game.
Think of how it mirrors real life. In real life, your actions have consequences but there is never any guarantee
of a way to 'win'. Expecting the game to have a typical 'happy' video game ending as well as the storytelling and emotional depths of great narratives is probably asking too much (even though it is implementable)There is no empirical evidence to the following claim, but I think writers who do not pander to fans, who stick to their artistic integrity make better storytellers than those who do otherwise. If you want Bioware to be a good storyteller instead of just a video game developer, you got to let them tell their story their way. As for the 'the player writes Shepard's story' promise, it was doomed to fail from the beginning. The degree of branching narratives that the fans expect was never going to be practical in a video game - ever.
Modifié par Torrible, 07 août 2012 - 06:12 .
#71
Guest_ajb314_*
Posté 07 août 2012 - 06:13
Guest_ajb314_*
Guest_ajb314_*
-
- Guests
@looking glass:
Excellent point about Sam Spade and Sherlock Homes (incidentally, two of my favorite characters in literature). I did not get the sense that the author was speaking about all characters in fiction but about Shepard in particular (although I admit I might be wrong). Even a paragon Shepard mistrusts Legion at the start. As Shepard is potentially a paragon or a renegade (or a bit of both), and as more and more of the nature of the galaxy is revealed to him he does evolve over time. Of course, it is possible that the author does discount the kinds of fictions you are talking about, which might explain his viewpoint.
Excellent point about Sam Spade and Sherlock Homes (incidentally, two of my favorite characters in literature). I did not get the sense that the author was speaking about all characters in fiction but about Shepard in particular (although I admit I might be wrong). Even a paragon Shepard mistrusts Legion at the start. As Shepard is potentially a paragon or a renegade (or a bit of both), and as more and more of the nature of the galaxy is revealed to him he does evolve over time. Of course, it is possible that the author does discount the kinds of fictions you are talking about, which might explain his viewpoint.
#72
Posté 07 août 2012 - 06:13
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 349 messages
Someone should tell this guy that what made Mass effect so special was supposed to be the amazing permutations the players' actions could bring about, not the heavy handed allegory it can show us.
As Shepard, we (supposedly) could make our own fate in the story.
If to become art, video games have to stop being video games, I'd rather they just stayed entertainment, thanks.
As Shepard, we (supposedly) could make our own fate in the story.
If to become art, video games have to stop being video games, I'd rather they just stayed entertainment, thanks.
#73
Guest_BringBackNihlus_*
Posté 07 août 2012 - 06:21
Guest_BringBackNihlus_*
Guest_BringBackNihlus_*
-
- Guests
Film critic ≠ game critic.
#74
Guest_ajb314_*
Posté 07 août 2012 - 06:21
Guest_ajb314_*
Guest_ajb314_*
-
- Guests
@Torrible:
I don't disagree with you. As I mention in my post, The ending to the narrative is actually quite beautiful. Especially considering that the player is given so much choice. The bittersweet ending is both fitting and a "mirror of real life". But it goes back to my comment about the medium. As someone that does not play many video games anymore, I had a vision of what I want a video game (not a narrative) to be. I suppose the best way to say it is that my expectations did not match what the devs wanted to accomplish. And honestly, I do not have a problem with that. That happens all the time in the artistic (and commercial) world. This is one of the reasons I have not posted until now. I was torn between loving a good story and loving a good video game. I don't need a different or happier ending, I just wanted one. But maybe that is what makes ME such a unique experience as a narrative and as a video game...And let me just add that now that I have posted a few comments, I am rather enjoying it. Thanks for responding to my post.
I don't disagree with you. As I mention in my post, The ending to the narrative is actually quite beautiful. Especially considering that the player is given so much choice. The bittersweet ending is both fitting and a "mirror of real life". But it goes back to my comment about the medium. As someone that does not play many video games anymore, I had a vision of what I want a video game (not a narrative) to be. I suppose the best way to say it is that my expectations did not match what the devs wanted to accomplish. And honestly, I do not have a problem with that. That happens all the time in the artistic (and commercial) world. This is one of the reasons I have not posted until now. I was torn between loving a good story and loving a good video game. I don't need a different or happier ending, I just wanted one. But maybe that is what makes ME such a unique experience as a narrative and as a video game...And let me just add that now that I have posted a few comments, I am rather enjoying it. Thanks for responding to my post.
#75
Posté 07 août 2012 - 06:26
Deltateam Elcor
-
- Members
- 783 messages
Critics are one of the first forms of modern trolling.
Art critique? something that is so utterly subjective that it cannot be molded by one hubris loaded, vapid egotist.
I mean really...who falls for this ****, Oh wait, people like the OP.
Art critique? something that is so utterly subjective that it cannot be molded by one hubris loaded, vapid egotist.
I mean really...who falls for this ****, Oh wait, people like the OP.
Modifié par Deltateam Elcor, 07 août 2012 - 06:26 .
