354 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

D24O wrote...

ME has always been a detail oriented series, not a vague, abstract allegory. It was usually meant to be taken at face value, and it bombards you with details, just look at all the waking codices we have, as well as the codex itself. The OE creates a drastic stylistic dissonance, that for me, broke my immersion in the game, and since I was pushed out, the message they tried to send didn't get through. It doesn't matter how deep or profound a message you have if you are unable to get it across, and the OE didn't do that for many.

EC still failed to do that for some.

[The Angry One]

Zjarcal wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Remarkable how people who like the endings do their best to ignore what's actually happening in the story, favoring instead abstract symbolism, like the characters and the people in the story don't matter anymore.

Notice how he never gets into specifics. Not strange, since the actual events are pretty much indefensible.

What? Liking the ending now means you don't care about the characters in the story? And who says we're ignoring what's happening in the story?

If you like not knowing what happened to anybody, then I can't say you cared a great deal about them. You'd want to know what became of the people you love, no?

That's a big load of BS.

I can be perfectly fine accepting an ambiguous ending (that DOES show me that my crew is alive and that my own character is alive) without it meaning I don't care about them.

Stop trying to say how other people feel about things based on your own opinion of the ending.

So you accept an ambiguous ending that's not ambiguous about the things you specifically care about. Which is, you know, the whole point.

[D24O]

Well after getting "hit" bu Harby'e beam, there is still some stylistic dissonance, but knowing its coming helps insulate me to an extent. I still think its out of place, it doesn't feel right, especially with them taking away your characters, I will never understand the decision to strip on of the strongest elements of the game. But the slides return that focus on character, and a little bit of attention to detail that I loved ME for, which allows me a better level of immersion.

[Baronesa]

If they wanted a confrontation of ideas... the whole conflict with TIM and Anderson was the perfect moment for it...

Everything that happens after the magic elevator activates is just one big load of manure.

[Jononarf]

I thought the Hulk thing was funny. Not sure what your problems are with it.

[Baronesa]

Jononarf wrote...

I thought the Hulk thing was funny. Not sure what your problems are with it.

oh no real problems at all...

It just ignore the previous 2 games... no biggie, really

It treats the story as if it was a movie, while that may work on games like Jedi Outcast, Battlefield 3, Ghostbusters the videogame, it does not work on games that are supposed to factor your decisions and change the direction of things in accordance to that.

And it nver really went to praise an ending that is a complete tonal shift not only on the self contained game but that also betrays all the main themes from the previous games...


no problems at all.

[Blueprotoss]

Stornskar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Nimori wrote... 

I have always been a fan of symbolic/philosophical endings, when they fit. While I can appreciate the symbolism and the philosophical discussions raised by the pre-EC and post-EC endings, they ultimately detract from the overall story of Mass Effect. These questions would have been better suited to have been raised earlier in the story, allowing the audience to consider them as the resolution builds, not as the resolution in and of itself.

How does the symbolism ultimately detract from the overall story of Mass Effect when Bioware has always been about symbolism even down to the eyes of characters.  There will always be some people complaining about "resolution" especially when everyone has their own tastes.

There is a difference between applying symbolism subtly, with deftness so that it is an integral part of the story, and taking a symbolic mallet and hitting us in the face with it. The ME3 ending was the latter ...

If you didn't expect the ending to happen that way in one way or another then you missed a lot of the symbolism and foreshadowing thorughout the series.  Its like saying you never expected the One Ring to be destroyed, Cheif wouldn't defeat the Covenant, or Skynet wouldn't be activated.

[Blueprotoss]

Greylycantrope wrote...

D24O wrote...

ME has always been a detail oriented series, not a vague, abstract allegory. It was usually meant to be taken at face value, and it bombards you with details, just look at all the waking codices we have, as well as the codex itself. The OE creates a drastic stylistic dissonance, that for me, broke my immersion in the game, and since I was pushed out, the message they tried to send didn't get through. It doesn't matter how deep or profound a message you have if you are unable to get it across, and the OE didn't do that for many.

EC still failed to do that for some.

You can't please everyone.

[The Angry One]

Blueprotoss wrote...

If you didn't expect the ending to happen that way in one way or another then you missed a lot of the symbolism and foreshadowing thorughout the series.  Its like saying you never expected the One Ring to be destroyed, Cheif wouldn't defeat the Covenant, or Skynet wouldn't be activated.

Foreshadowing? Of what? Spacebaby? The idiotic reason for the cycle? The nonsensical events of the ending?
None of that was foreshadowed, and claiming it was is highly dishonest.

Unless you're going under the highly generic "Reapers would be defeated", which could happen any number of ways and has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Memnon]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

There is a difference between applying symbolism subtly, with deftness so that it is an integral part of the story, and taking a symbolic mallet and hitting us in the face with it. The ME3 ending was the latter ...

If you didn't expect the ending to happen that way in one way or another then you missed a lot of the symbolism and foreshadowing thorughout the series.  Its like saying you never expected the One Ring to be destroyed, Cheif wouldn't defeat the Covenant, or Skynet wouldn't be activated.

Did you read what I said, or did you just write down a bunch of random crap and hope it made sense?

[Nimori]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Nimori wrote...

The fact that the review is based merely on the play through of ME3, and not on the series as a whole, diminishes its credibility. Comparing ME3 to Citizen Kane doesn't work because Citizen Kane is a stand-alone, self-contained story, which is perfectly suited to an ambiguous ending. It would be better to compare ME3 to a film trilogy or even a television series because the entirety of the story must be considered in the resolution. Even though the guy in the embedded video he bashes is over the top in his presentation, his argument is based on how the endings are incongruent with the overall series. He also cites a number of examples of these inconsistencies.

This makes you sound like you don't want people to be unbiased even when most people haven't played most of the games in every series that they have played.  It doesn't matter if something is a stand-alone, self-contained story, or has an ambiguous ending based on there's always an Alpha and an Omega.

Nimori wrote... 

I have always been a fan of symbolic/philosophical endings, when they fit. While I can appreciate the symbolism and the philosophical discussions raised by the pre-EC and post-EC endings, they ultimately detract from the overall story of Mass Effect. These questions would have been better suited to have been raised earlier in the story, allowing the audience to consider them as the resolution builds, not as the resolution in and of itself.

How does the symbolism ultimately detract from the overall story of Mass Effect when Bioware has always been about symbolism even down to the eyes of characters.  There will always be some people complaining about "resolution" especially when everyone has their own tastes.

I have no idea what you're referring to with these "Alpha" and "Omega" archetypes.  The reason why the ending must take into account the entirety of the series is because it is the ending of the series.  I more or less agree with the review if ME3 is viewed as a self-contained story, but it's not.

For example, if during the explanation of the Destroy option, the Starchild tells you that this will destroy the Geth and EDI because they are synthetic.  However, if you examine the entiry trilogy you see a number of instances, dialogues, etc that raise the question as to whether or not the Geth or EDI are "alive" by the traditional definition of the term.  During ME3, depending upon your choices, the story plays out to portray the Geth and EDI as becoming more human.  Conversely, the Reapers were once organics who have lost all of their "humanity," so to speak, and have an extremely narrow viewpoint on conflict resolution.  The inability of Starchild/Repears to think outside of their narrow "programming" stands in direct opposition to the diveristy that the current cycle champions.  Now one way that this could have been addressed would have been to make the Destroy ending affect only those with an unaltered Reaper code, which could have allowed a "perfect" ending whereby upgrading the Geth and EDI allowed them to evolve the Reaper code, again referring back to the theme of being alive, which prevented them from being destroyed by the Crucible's energy.  This also allows for a more interesting (in my opinion) form of Synthesis.

Because the endings seem to not fully consider a number of previous themes and questions already raised by the previous ~90 hours, the outcomes are quite jarring and disjointed with the whole.  This is where the symbolism breaks down.  For 90% of the series we're being asked to consider one set of questions/ideas, and then the ending suddenly disregards those questions and asks us to consider a new set of questions/ideas while only giving us a superficial explanation as to why the old questions/ideas are no longer relevant.  For example, Starchild claims that organics and synthetics will always come into conflict and that his solution was the only thing he could come up with to prevent synthetics from completely wiping out organics.  All logical fallacies aside, this particular claim ignores that fact that the Geth and EDI are no longer purely synthetic.  Shephard, at the very least, has shown that there may be another means to conflict resolution between organics and synthetics.  That means is to reconsider what exactly it means to be synthetic or organic.  While this idea is somewhat raised by the Synthesis ending, it's so poorly executed that it detracts from the significance of the question.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Nyoka wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

That's a big load of BS.

I can be perfectly fine accepting an ambiguous ending (that DOES show me that my crew is alive and that my own character is alive) without it meaning I don't care about them.

Stop trying to say how other people feel about things based on your own opinion of the ending.

So, all the quarian civilian ships. No relays to go back home once the fight is over. They have nearly 50,000 light years of space ahead of them.

Aren't you a bit worried that there's no way they're going to make it even at FTL speed? (and if they will make it just fine, what's the point of having relays in the first place? After all, the plan of the Reapers was for us to depend on them...)

And your crew is alive... with no means of transportation or communication, or even feeding, for that matter. I get the idea. Everything looks nice and they smile, so it's all good. But the actual circumstances they're in, if you stop and look at what's happening, are more similar to Alive than anything else.

How are they going to rescue Shepard when they're on Gilligan's planet in some system in the middle of no where? The Relays are broken, the galaxy's in a dark age. Lol.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Stornskar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

There is a difference between applying symbolism subtly, with deftness so that it is an integral part of the story, and taking a symbolic mallet and hitting us in the face with it. The ME3 ending was the latter ...

If you didn't expect the ending to happen that way in one way or another then you missed a lot of the symbolism and foreshadowing thorughout the series.  Its like saying you never expected the One Ring to be destroyed, Cheif wouldn't defeat the Covenant, or Skynet wouldn't be activated.

Did you read what I said, or did you just write down a bunch of random crap and hope it made sense?

It's Blueprotoss, meaning the latter is the most likely explanation.

[D24O]

Baronesa wrote...

It treats the story as if it was a movie

I think this is my biggest bone of contention with is review. He talks about games using the interactive medium to their fullest potential, but then says that they should preach down to the player. I disagree, that type of storytelling in a game like mass effect is squandering the potential of the medium. Look at the Rannoch, Tuchunka, and Legion loyalty missions for example. They posit issues, and while the writers suggest what they think is right, the player is ultimately the one who decided for themselves. Its something of a dialogue, which is in stark contrast to the ending, where the Catalyst just preaches down to you. I think that having that quasi debate with the player, letting them explore other options as one can do in those missions, is a better use of the medium than the ending was, at least in the context of Mass Effect. Now games like RDR, which are more on rails benifit more from being told things, and it worked beautifully in that context, but that's a different type of expierence.

[Blueprotoss]

Leon Felps wrote...

You got to be a troll or something because that could be one of the most retarded statements I've ever read.  I don't care what the context, you're broken if you do not feel entitled to have an expectation met.  I never mentioned any unreasonable expectation, which would then make a case as being bad, but thanks for putting words in my mouth while you take BW's bean bags in yours.

Its not my fault that you're not using common sense since your comparison with food and video games was bad before you started.  Its petty to insult people based on how you don't know the meaning of the word "troll" and nothing will have a 100% satisfactory rating.

Leon Felps wrote... 

I don't think BW owes anyone anything.  If they can get paid and do their thing, they should.  Just like cooks that made that steak wouldn't own me anything if I had paid for the garbage meal before hand.  I'm still not wrong wanting it my way, they just don't have to oblige.

If you actually think that BW doesn't owe anyone anything then why are you bringing up entitlement still because you don't think like that.  Again your comparison with food and video games was bad when you used it in your previous comment.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Blueprotoss wrote...

You can't please everyone.

No but they could have made a better attempt. There's also a difference between not pleasing and down right pissing off. They knew this would be the case too http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angry

[Blueprotoss]

The Angry One wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

If you didn't expect the ending to happen that way in one way or another then you missed a lot of the symbolism and foreshadowing thorughout the series.  Its like saying you never expected the One Ring to be destroyed, Cheif wouldn't defeat the Covenant, or Skynet wouldn't be activated.

Foreshadowing? Of what? Spacebaby? The idiotic reason for the cycle? The nonsensical events of the ending?
None of that was foreshadowed, and claiming it was is highly dishonest.

Unless you're going under the highly generic "Reapers would be defeated", which could happen any number of ways and has nothing to do with this discussion.

If you listened and say the signs then you knew the child in th beginning of ME3 wasn't a random thing.

[Blueprotoss]

Stornskar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

There is a difference between applying symbolism subtly, with deftness so that it is an integral part of the story, and taking a symbolic mallet and hitting us in the face with it. The ME3 ending was the latter ...

If you didn't expect the ending to happen that way in one way or another then you missed a lot of the symbolism and foreshadowing thorughout the series.  Its like saying you never expected the One Ring to be destroyed, Cheif wouldn't defeat the Covenant, or Skynet wouldn't be activated.

Did you read what I said, or did you just write down a bunch of random crap and hope it made sense?

Yet I could say the same thing if I wanted to be ignorant just ike you.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Edit: Post removed 

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 07 août 2012 - 09:09 .

[ElMuchu]

Omanisat wrote...

I tried. I really did. But the ****ing CAPITAL LETTER beat me. Oh well.

Same for me....

[Blueprotoss]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

You can't please everyone.

No but they could have made a better attempt. There's also a difference between not pleasing and down right pissing off. They knew this would be the case too http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angry

Yet you're just proving that some people can't and don't want to be pleased no matter what happens.

[The Angry One]

Blueprotoss wrote...

If you listened and say the signs then you knew the child in th beginning of ME3 wasn't a random thing.

The child has absolutely nothing to do with the ending other than a ham-fisted attempt at misplaced symbolism.
That is not foreshadowing.

Also I notice you're using the intro of ME3 to defend the ending. That's nice, except the intro is also badly written.

Modifié par The Angry One, 07 août 2012 - 05:37 .

[Almostfaceman]

I DO NOT AGREE WITH FILM CRIT HULK. ME SMASH.