354 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonata]

I think that there is something almost funny in 6 page of so-called "hardcore fans" butchering their supposed favourite series and basically saying that BioWare devs made the biggest mistake of their life trying "art" in a videogame.

Anyway, while I don't want to offend anyone, I must admit that his line about pornography is kind of right: people want satisfaction because they paid for it, they want the game to satisfy their own desires... there's little difference between a game that bends his own storytelling to indulge in the player desires and a porn video designed only to satisfy the physical need of the viewer.

And I say this with the full knowledge of the "Mass Effect is about player's choice" statement. Actually, if you read what the Hulk says regarding the similarities between the original endings, you can see that making the player chose is what send the message, not just watching it. It's the way BioWare used player choice to send the message that makes Mass Effect "videogame art" and not just a good movie with interactive sequences.

PS: to all of you who keep saying "Movie critics should never touch videogames". First of all, videogames are trying to mimic movies' formulas since 1996 (Resident Evil 1) and by the way Film Crit Hulk obviously knows what a videogame is. He wrote great articles about Batman: Arkham City and Skyrim and he often talks about the potential of the videogame media with the proper seriousness, not just yeling in a YouTube clip.

Modifié par Jonata, 07 août 2012 - 02:45 .

[Onpoint17]

Art or otherwise, to me the original ending was an absolute fail. Bioware reinforced their failure by releasing EC which showed us things we could never have imagined the real ending was trying to convey. The bottom line for me is that I don't want art. I want a video game where I can beat the odds and win. I don't want to be shoe-horned into an ending where I can't avoid Harbinger's beam when up until that point I was able to avoid the reaper beams on Rannoch and earlier in London. The ending of the series to me was a complete disappointment.

[ThaDPG]

One of the biggest trolls I've seen in a while. I'm not so sure he actually played through the first 2 games and really got into the story

[Sunnie]

Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one.

I disagree with this critics review, for the same reasons I disagreed with those who liked the original endings as they were. Nothing has changed, nor will it.

One thing is certain though, the time he spent thinking about and writing that article was a waste, since any review of the game now will have zero impact on anyone (other than pro-ending trolls wanting to wave this is in peoples faces).
He could have better used the time for something else, like brushing his teeth, or washing his hair (does he even have hair?), or walking his pet, or vacuuming his house, or finding another subject to write about. I also agree with a previous post where it is noted that this critic seems a bit disconnected when reviewing games, and I have to agree with that opinion.

Anyway, nice trolling, it seems to be working to some extent!

[Memnon]

I can't think of a better way to start an intelligent dialogue than to take a reviewer who looks at someone with an opposing point of view and says, "F&^K THIS GUY."

[Ithurael]

You know what is really funny. Most of the comments on that review all disagree with him and point out quite a few things in Hulk's argument that do not add up or are wrong. And here we are on BSN where many are pointing out disagreement and illogical points. I think that Mass Effect 3 has a 50/50 split (at best) of like or love it/hate it.

One comment sums it up perfectly for me - and I paraphrase:
"In the end you are not given solution Shepard's problem, you are given the solutions to the Catalysts problem"
That and that alone is why the ending failed to me.

[Xx_Belzak_xX]

OniTYME wrote...

[Fiannawolf]

Good thing I wasnt drinking any coffee at the time. God I needed a good laugh. Thanks Hulk! I utterly disagree with your POV on the ME3 endings but yea....sorry, wont ever see eye to eye on that one.

[MattFini]

Stornskar wrote...

I can't think of a better way to start an intelligent dialogue than to take a reviewer who looks at someone with an opposing point of view and says, "F&^K THIS GUY."

[3DandBeyond]

Ithurael wrote...

You know what is really funny. Most of the comments on that review all disagree with him and point out quite a few things in Hulk's argument that do not add up or are wrong. And here we are on BSN where many are pointing out disagreement and illogical points. I think that Mass Effect 3 has a 50/50 split (at best) of like or love it/hate it.

One comment sums it up perfectly for me - and I paraphrase:
"In the end you are not given solution Shepard's problem, you are given the solutions to the Catalysts problem"
That and that alone is why the ending failed to me.

This is truth.  In the end we have a conversation about how we can help the enemy.  That speaks art and win all over the place.

I do think 50/50 like or love/hate is generous.  I'm not claiming to know the breakdown, but when you consider that the most vocal groups are those that care enough one way or another to comment things become clear anecdotally.

Most of those that like it have been lukewarm about it.  Those that liked the original endings, often at best thought they were ok, not the best but that's how games are, or they just felt no one had the right to complain about content in a game.  Very few raved about how wonderful the endings were-this guy's one of many in review land that have done so, but average players were not saying they loved what they saw.  And most said that they could have been better and were not what BW promised or said they'd be.  Most said they did not reflect their choices in the 3 games.

The EC suffers some of the same problems.  People will however say they love it but for the wrong reasons.  Most said it was meh, but better than the original endings.  They'd say the EC still didn't fit ME but at least they could now finish the game.  Or one ending was ok or better, but most didn't say they absolutely loved it and it was just the type of ending they hoped for and expected.  And some of those that loved it said it was because it was cool to be reaper god or they already had killed the geth so they didn't care about them or EDI or because green eyes were cool and being part robot was awesome.  I'm not saying everyone said that, but I read page after page of comments and most of those that loved the EC didn't love it for the great art that it was or for the great story it told or because it just tied up everything in the stories.  A lot of people liked it because it looked cool and people seemed happier afterward and the galaxy wasn't destroyed.  Well those people have low standards.  Others did give reasons, but most of those in my opinion made little sense-they made little sense to me.  And the biggest offender is the idea that anything else was impossible.  Well again in my opinion that's just not a good enough reason for ending a game like this.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Jonata wrote...

Anyway, while I don't want to offend anyone, I must admit that his line about pornography is kind of right: people want satisfaction because they paid for it, they want the game to satisfy their own desires... there's little difference between a game that bends his own storytelling to indulge in the player desires and a porn video designed only to satisfy the physical need of the viewer.
 

Sure, his comparison is right. And if the difference between art and a product is that the latter pleases while the former doesn't, then I'll come out and say that art is a waste of time, as long as I'm expected to pay for it. The product which appeals is the product which sells and that goes for anything: movies, games, porn, books, etc. What exactly did I pay for, if not to satisfy my own desires?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 07 août 2012 - 03:36 .

[Blueprotoss]

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.

The primary reason symbolism cannot be something you base the backbone of your story on is because symbolism is fully malleable to each individual person. That's why its considered an abstract concept within literature. It'd be like me holding up an ink blot picture. Someone will say they see two people dancing, someone else will say they see nothing but an inkblot.

This is why your story must be based solely on the concrete pieces of literature, exposition, central themes, character development, dialogue, plot and plot progression. Things that arent malleable, they happen in the story so they happen.

Think of a story as you would a building, with symbolism being the minor things, like a coffe table, curtains, a night table, things like that.

Mass effect three just foreclosed your home and left you with the night table, curtains and coffee table. Hardly a good trade off.

Whenever an Author cries symbolism as part of a defense of his work, most other authors don't take him seriously, or damn near outright dismiss it as crap right off the bat. Any person that can defend criticism with facts (X thing did not happen because of X or Y thing did happen because of Y) That's fine.

But the moment an author has to say to a major piece of story "Its symbolic"

Then he's most likely full of ****.

And before some of you people jump down my throat that symbolism is used all the time, take note that I specified major pieces of the story. If someone were to ask in a story why did you name the character So and so, and the author says

Well his name is kinda symbolic because it derives from such and such who did X thing in his lifetime so it kinda paralells that"

That's symbolism that can and should be used. Cherry over a delicious desert.

If symbolism was subtle then why does Bioware use a lot of symbolism throughout their games.  Heck a good chunk of their symbolism is based on foreshadowing.

[Blueprotoss]

WindfishDude wrote...

I'm sorry, but that guy is a tool and he uses the same 'counter-arguments' that the Moriaty guy from IGN did, to tell us all off.

Dude has decided that ME3's endings are about cycles 'It was always about cycles, ever since ME1!' he rants, all in caps. And because it's all about cycles and returning to Eden, it's a masterpiece! It all makes sense, 3 choices to break the cycle. It's so perfect!

Well, Mr. Caps-Lock/Hulk man, I reject your arguments, and I say 'No, it was never about cycles and/or innocence through annihalation... that's something you came up with on your own, bro.'

I don't know this guy, and maybe he's super smart and has it all figured out, but to me, he just comes off as another victim of trying too hard to be clever while experiencing interpretive storytelling. And everytime someone gets a boner over stuff like that, Mac Walters gets his wings.

edit: @Poster below - what did I do?

ME has always been about cycles since the Reapers were mentioned in ME1 and it sounds like you're only interested in hearing your side instead of both sides.

krukow wrote...

"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...

Nothing is retconned in ME3 because there's no conflict with ME1 and ME2.  Destroying the Reapers has always been the focus of the series and not that much was changed from the original endings to extended endings. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 août 2012 - 03:49 .

[phat0817]

So I finished the article and I understand what he's saying....but Hulk needs to understand something this is a video game not a independent art film that he was watching......

[Blueprotoss]

phat0817 wrote...

So I finished the article and I understand what he's saying....but Hulk needs to understand something this is a video game not a independent art film that he was watching......

Yet it shouldn't matter whether its independent or corporate. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 août 2012 - 03:49 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Oh lord! are ye people actually taking this srsly?

[Blueprotoss]

Kabraxal wrote...

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.  

Yet this is the Year of Gamer Entitlement based on what happened with Dark Souls, Diablo 3, Zelda: Skyward Sword, RE: ORC, Street Fighter x Tekken, ME3, Tomb Raider, and Hitman: Absolution while there's 4 months to go.

codename2o2 wrote...

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

That review shows a lot less bias and its nice to see this from a different angle based on how some games are basically like movies. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 août 2012 - 04:00 .

[Arathyl]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Arathyl wrote...

video games are not art?... i read it only half way then stopped. dude doesn't understand the me universe. oooorrrr successful troll is successful

He must be a sleeper agent for Hudson. Planted years ago to give genuine critique, earn some respect, and then try to justify ME3's ending.

haha YES!!!! maybe he is!

[Shaigunjoe]

Why is everyone so surprised about the cycles thing? I always thought Bioware had a thing for cycles, in the SW universe, in the DA universe, in the ME universe. Apparently he dug the idea more than most people, so what?

[GreyLycanTrope]

Blueprotoss wrote...

WindfishDude wrote...

I'm sorry, but that guy is a tool and he uses the same 'counter-arguments' that the Moriaty guy from IGN did, to tell us all off.

Dude has decided that ME3's endings are about cycles 'It was always about cycles, ever since ME1!' he rants, all in caps. And because it's all about cycles and returning to Eden, it's a masterpiece! It all makes sense, 3 choices to break the cycle. It's so perfect!

Well, Mr. Caps-Lock/Hulk man, I reject your arguments, and I say 'No, it was never about cycles and/or innocence through annihalation... that's something you came up with on your own, bro.'

I don't know this guy, and maybe he's super smart and has it all figured out, but to me, he just comes off as another victim of trying too hard to be clever while experiencing interpretive storytelling. And everytime someone gets a boner over stuff like that, Mac Walters gets his wings.

edit: @Poster below - what did I do?

ME has always been about cycles since the Reapers were mentioned in ME1 and it sounds like you're only interested in hearing your side instead of both sides.

krukow wrote...

"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...

Nothing is retconned in ME3 because there's no conflict with ME1 and ME2.  Destroying the Reapers has always been the focus of the series and not that much was changed from the original endings to extended endings. 

I could argue but..

[Mahrac]

Blueprotoss wrote...

phat0817 wrote...

So I finished the article and I understand what he's saying....but Hulk needs to understand something this is a video game not a independent art film that he was watching......

Yet it shouldn't matter whether its independent or corporate. 

Wrong deffinition of independent it means stand-alone in that sentence, not indie.

[Blueprotoss]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

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.

All I see is straw-men especially when if he didn't know sci-fi then he wouldn't have reviewed John Charter.  There are a lot of differences between Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and the works of Isaac Asimov based on how Mary focused on people and Asimov focused on robots.

LookingGlass93 wrote...

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.

People shouldn't use Sherlock Holmes as crutch based on how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did what most of the European authors did at his time by publishing his drafts in weekly Literature magazines. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 août 2012 - 04:11 .

[Blueprotoss]

Mahrac wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

phat0817 wrote...

So I finished the article and I understand what he's saying....but Hulk needs to understand something this is a video game not a independent art film that he was watching......

Yet it shouldn't matter whether its independent or corporate. 

Wrong deffinition of independent it means stand-alone in that sentence, not indie.

Either way it still doesn't matter whether its independent in any definition of the word.

[Blueprotoss]

Greylycantrope wrote...

I could argue but..

Yet you did have time.

[Mahrac]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

phat0817 wrote...

So I finished the article and I understand what he's saying....but Hulk needs to understand something this is a video game not a independent art film that he was watching......

Yet it shouldn't matter whether its independent or corporate. 

Wrong deffinition of independent it means stand-alone in that sentence, not indie.

Either way it still doesn't matter whether its independent in any definition of the word.

Yes it does. The ending should fit in, not only with ME3, but with the entire series. Most of the people on the forums seen to think that it doesn't, and the review doesn't seem to treat it like part of it's series.