689 réponses à ce sujet

[Hatchetman77]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

No, I'm pretty sure the ending was poorly-received because it was awful.

I'm inclined to agree with this.  It's so crazy it may actually be true.

[rekn2]

i wouldve handled the endings in a way much different.

there would be no starkid, maybe harbinger.

there would be no abc choice scenario at the end and the choices themselves could still exist.

lets take destroy. i would not have had shep shoot at something at the very end. the players choices wouldve dictated the ending, you would have to side with the quarians and denied edi a relationship and not allowed her to upgrade or change herself, as an example.

what im trying to say is the root doctrine of the player, made understandable by their choices prior, would dictate the outcome. having abc, or d after EC, all of a sudden and all together at the very end is bad writing. having a shep even being allowed to pick destroy after getting the geth and quarians to coexist, having legion save the heretics, allowing edi to upgrade and improve herself, is beyond me......why? because it goes against the narrative I THE PLAYER have created.

alienation indeed

[vixvicco]

No, it was because it offered little choice and still does.
The EC improved on a dull concept.
The ending lacked the creativity they had shown in the previous games and even the story in the third game was good right till the end.
We still don't know the answers to many questions and now, I no longer care. If anything, Bioware is to blame for creating an amazing story they couldn't finish.

Modifié par vixvicco, 24 octobre 2012 - 08:29 .

[78stonewobble]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

My absolutely biggest problem with the endings is the following:

"synthetics will allways kill organics"

Without much in the way of any "evidence". It is such a facepalmingly bad logic or rather forced explanation that I don't even know where to begin to describe my disappointment with it.

It's like a... psychological murder thriller that ends with the notion that ... "some people are just murderers (derp!)" and ... well thats just how it is.

I'd buy the explanation of vengefull ai, faulty ai, crazy ai and so forth... Not an illogical attempt at an explanation of an even more illogical force of nature thing.

PS: I fully acknowledge other peoples right to their own oppinion on any subject but I'll still say that if you can accept a statement like "synthetics will allways kill organics" you haven't actually thought it through.
 
PPS: I have to try to explain my dislike of it a little more.

Many many many years ago at the age of maybe 5... My uncles had wifes but 1 of my uncles had a boyfriend. A perfectly reasonable explanation to me at that age for that is what my parents told me: "Some people ARE just that way."

As an adult and if I ask myself the question: Why are some people gay? I'd have to look into a multitude of psychological research, genetical research and heck even ask people directly what being gay is and why and so on.

I feel bioware treated me like a kid with their explanation.

PPPS: I rather like much of the rest of the game. Rarely have a game kept that emotionally engaged. Too much overboard on the autodialogue. A few minor graphical bugs and so on... Still I'd rate most of the game as 9-9.5 outta 10 without the ending. With ending my rating goes down to 7-7.5 outta 10. ... *sigh* A ww2 why we fought piece with the answer being AMERICAH! or ... fo shizzle... action reply.

Pretty much this...of course ME3 has stellar moments (Tuchanka, Rannoch),  but the main plot  is subpar , priority: Earth drops the ball and the ending kick you in the facewith itschildish logic.

To be fair its easy to paint broad strokes based on a strawman like saying that singularity would never exist.

I assume youre referring to a supposed artificial intelligence "singularity" as opposed to a black hole.

I didn't say that it couldn't exist. I am saying that based on the displayed evidence and common logic there is little to support the possibility of an AI singularity and little reason to suspect that it would be a danger.

I can exclaim that the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese or that lightning comes from Thors hammer getting thrown around.

An "incredulous" postulation needs even more credible evidence and if you didn't find the ai vs. organics postulation incredulous you haven't thought it through.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:44 .

[rekn2]

78stonewobble wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

My absolutely biggest problem with the endings is the following:

"synthetics will allways kill organics"

Without much in the way of any "evidence". It is such a facepalmingly bad logic or rather forced explanation that I don't even know where to begin to describe my disappointment with it.

It's like a... psychological murder thriller that ends with the notion that ... "some people are just murderers (derp!)" and ... well thats just how it is.

I'd buy the explanation of vengefull ai, faulty ai, crazy ai and so forth... Not an illogical attempt at an explanation of an even more illogical force of nature thing.

PS: I fully acknowledge other peoples right to their own oppinion on any subject but I'll still say that if you can accept a statement like "synthetics will allways kill organics" you haven't actually thought it through.
 
PPS: I have to try to explain my dislike of it a little more.

Many many many years ago at the age of maybe 5... My uncles had wifes but 1 of my uncles had a boyfriend. A perfectly reasonable explanation to me at that age for that is what my parents told me: "Some people ARE just that way."

As an adult and if I ask myself the question: Why are some people gay? I'd have to look into a multitude of psychological research, genetical research and heck even ask people directly what being gay is and why and so on.

I feel bioware treated me like a kid with their explanation.

PPPS: I rather like much of the rest of the game. Rarely have a game kept that emotionally engaged. Too much overboard on the autodialogue. A few minor graphical bugs and so on... Still I'd rate most of the game as 9-9.5 outta 10 without the ending. With ending my rating goes down to 7-7.5 outta 10. ... *sigh* A ww2 why we fought piece with the answer being AMERICAH! or ... fo shizzle... action reply.

Pretty much this...of course ME3 has stellar moments (Tuchanka, Rannoch),  but the main plot  is subpar , priority: Earth drops the ball and the ending kick you in the facewith itschildish logic.

To be fair its easy to paint broad strokes based on a strawman like saying that singularity would never exist.

I assume youre referring to a supposed artificial intelligence "singularity" as opposed to a black hole.

I didn't say that it couldn't exist. I am saying that based on the displayed evidence and common logic there is little to support the possibility of an AI singularity and little reason to suspect that it would be a danger.

I can exclaim that the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese or that lightning comes from Thors hammer getting thrown around.

An "incredulous" postulation needs even more credible evidence and if you didn't find the ai vs. organics postulation incredulous you haven't thought it through.

the more blue says strawman and broad strokes the more he proves he doesnt know the meening of either word.


i agree theres a lot wrong, moreso than the fundamental level, but, if a table has no legs to stand on who cares about the surface?

[Blueprotoss]

BeefheartSpud wrote...

Omg jackpot, it's a Bluprotoss posting spree!

*Overusage of the terms/phrases "To be fair," "Haters gonna hate," "Strawmann," rendering them hollow.
*Bemusing misapplication of subordinating conjunctions ("Yet," "When," "While")
*Misapplication of the word "Ironic/Ironically"
*Random yet consistent mispellings demonstrating not accidental typos but a fundamental misunderstanding of grammar, etymology, definitions, etc.
*Saying something insulting then accusing the other person of being insulting
*...Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand non sequitur rebuttals including, but not limited to, bringing up past video games or events that are immaterial to the subject matter.


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhghghhhghgggggggHGGhghuiue

I came.

I see that you're still "trolling" and I'm not surprised that logic fallacy is still your game.  It would be nice if people didn't act petty and immature on the Internet.

rekn2 wrote...

he reminds me of people who say "essentially" before every sentence to sound intelligent. i forgive mispellings (i do them to) and bad sentence structure (i do this as well) but i at least understand the subject of the discussion (a requirement to have a discussion in the first place).

I see you're one of those people that act intelligent while they're actually immature and petty, which that isn't hard to see since you're heavy reliance on insults and logic fallacies.  You should be focusing on practing what you preach instead of being a hypocrite.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 octobre 2012 - 03:58 .

[Blueprotoss]

rekn2 wrote...

the subject is sci fi drama. there are requirements that must be met on a fundamental level. i cant give you a book, call it sci fi drama and then have ever page blank except for the last page and it only says blueprotoss. i would agree with you if this were a comedy or something that can be stated in multiple ways but it isnt.

Don't you mean how ME is still sci-fi even when it has a space opera label.  Whether or not you don't like it you can't do anything about it.

rekn2 wrote...

a dog is a dog. something with wings and gills is not a dog no matter what anyone says. theres no misinterpretation here. in order for something to be sci fi drama, requirements must be met. i know i said that twice but people seriosly need to pay more attention in school.

This dog analogy is a bad attempt especially when its possible for dogs to have "wings" and "gills" from very rare birth defects or genetic mutations.

rekn2 wrote...

deus ex machina...do you understand what that means? adding a protagonist 3 minutes from the end...do you understand what that means? a ton of useless characters...do you understand what that means?

The Catalyst is neither a Machine God nor a "last minute" peice of the plot.   If the Catalyst was as you claim then the boy wouldn't have been in the very beginning of ME3,  the Crucible wouldn't have appeared as a plot device in the beginning of ME3, and Shepard wouldn't have constant nightmares throughout ME3.

rekn2 wrote...

this series had way to many writers and ill repeat this too...anyone with an education can see this, planely.

Insulting peopel doesn't prove your point to be right especially when your point is only based on opinion.  Btw writing is subjective in nature and everyone doesn't have the same personal tastes.

rekn2 wrote...

my statement isnt a straw man. "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet
unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without
ever having actually refuted the original position" straight from the wiki. ive refuted nothing but the fundamental/root problem. the ending makes no sense whatsoever. the ending degrades shep/the player and everything theyve done prior because what you did prior makes no difference. thats also why people whined for a refusal choice but at its very core there should be no choice especially by some "god" who swoops down in the last second without ever being introduced prior.

Yet that is an example of a strawman since you twisted the original topic and altered it into a mess so you can interject opinion into it.  You forget that logic avoids opinion and that alone tells me that you did create a strawman.

rekn2 wrote...

i could give example after example of bad writing.

I'm sure you'll be producing more contradictions here even when writing is based on opinion and logic is based on fact.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 octobre 2012 - 04:04 .

[Blueprotoss]

rekn2 wrote...

i wouldve handled the endings in a way much different.

there would be no starkid, maybe harbinger.

there would be no abc choice scenario at the end and the choices themselves could still exist.

lets take destroy. i would not have had shep shoot at something at the very end. the players choices wouldve dictated the ending, you would have to side with the quarians and denied edi a relationship and not allowed her to upgrade or change herself, as an example.

what im trying to say is the root doctrine of the player, made understandable by their choices prior, would dictate the outcome. having abc, or d after EC, all of a sudden and all together at the very end is bad writing. having a shep even being allowed to pick destroy after getting the geth and quarians to coexist, having legion save the heretics, allowing edi to upgrade and improve herself, is beyond me......why? because it goes against the narrative I THE PLAYER have created.

alienation indeed

I see you're still painting with broad strokes even when most people wouldn't share your opinion. Either way the player doesn't have the overall control because Bioware has that control based on how they created and wrote the story.

rekn2 wrote...

the more blue says strawman and broad strokes the more he proves he doesnt know the meening of either word.

i agree theres a lot wrong, moreso than the fundamental level, but, if a table has no legs to stand on who cares about the surface?

I see someone thats getting way too personal especially when you're mostly making assumptions here and letting emotions get the better of you. Remember insulting people doesn't do anything other then telling us that you have no credability like Rush Limbuagh. You're far from being interested in a simple discussion while you do want a childish measuring contest because you believe opinion is more important then fact.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Protoss at it again I see

[78stonewobble]

Well a truely rational and emotionless individual would have no need for videogames or discussing them.

Art is utterly subjective. It is at most a point judged sport compaired to objectively measured sport.

[Blueprotoss]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Protoss at it again I see

Some people need to hear the truth for once instead of them hearing the ignorance of some BSN users.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:28 .

[rekn2]

im not debating my points anymore, theyve been backed up by people with PhD.

fictional writing is not like a painting. the artist is telling you what happened.

"rekn2 went to the grocery store to buy a flux capacitor." even though what i just said is fictitious it still must follow rules and guidelines of communication. i cant just type "hjhjfjdfhdgdgdsgsgsgfsgfd" and have it make any sense.

@blueprotoss - YOU do not understand what i am saying.im through talking with you until you can give me a good debate.

[Blueprotoss]

rekn2 wrote...

im not debating my points anymore, theyve been backed up by people with PhD.

Opinion is opinion yet the only people you should listen to is Bioware hence ME is their story.  Its like telling James Cameron to f off with Avatar, Ridley Scott with Alien, Lucas with Star Wars, Speilberg with Indiana Jones, and Christopher Nolan with Batman.

rekn2 wrote...

fictional writing is not like a painting. the artist is telling you what happened.

"rekn2 went to the grocery store to buy a flux capacitor." even though what i just said is fictitious it still must follow rules and guidelines of communication. i cant just type "hjhjfjdfhdgdgdsgsgsgfsgfd" and have it make any sense.

Its easy to say this when you yourself isn't a writer making thousands to millions of dollars.

rekn2 wrote...

@blueprotoss - YOU do not understand what i am saying.im through talking with you until you can give me a good debate.

If I had no understanding then I would be using opinion instead of logic like what you are currently doing.  Either way you're not willing to have a discussion since you don't want to have one in the 1st place based on your heavy use of logic fallacies.  Btw finger pointing isn't going to solve anything.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:39 .

[drayfish]

Blueprotoss wrote...

rekn2 wrote...

im not debating my points anymore, theyve been backed up by people with PhD.

Opinion is opinion yet the only people you should listen to is Bioware hence ME is their story.  Its like telling James Cameron to f off with Avatar, Ridley Scott with Alien, Lucas with Star Wars, Speilberg with Indiana Jones, and Christopher Nolan with Batman.

rekn2 wrote...

fictional writing is not like a painting. the artist is telling you what happened.

"rekn2 went to the grocery store to buy a flux capacitor." even though what i just said is fictitious it still must follow rules and guidelines of communication. i cant just type "hjhjfjdfhdgdgdsgsgsgfsgfd" and have it make any sense.

Its easy to say this when you yourself isn't a writer making thousands to millions of dollars.

rekn2 wrote...

@blueprotoss - YOU do not understand what i am saying.im through talking with you until you can give me a good debate.

If I had no understanding then I would be using opinion instead of logic like what you are currently doing.  Either way you're not willing to have a discussion since you don't want to have one in the 1st place based on your heavy use of logic fallacies.  Btw finger pointing isn't going to solve anything.

Literally none of this made sense, Blueprotoss. ...Which I guess is an achievement, in a weird way.

Artists can always lose their way, and no longer understand their own fiction. They are not 'God' in the curious way that you seem to presume (when it suits you). Yes, they are by all definitions the closest to the work they produce, but that does not make them the sole adjudicators on the text's meaning, and they can (if they are not mindful) utterly disconnect from the meaning of the work - sometimes even by being altogether too close to it.

You cited George Lucas - a man who has himself acknowledged that Phantom Menace was not the greatest (ow - I just sprained my understatement muscle). Steven Spielberg has criticised the latest Indiana Jones. Bioware themselves have made fun of logical inconsistencies in their lore after the fact with characters like Conrad Verner. (You must know all this, but are intentionally pretending that it is not true.)

And so it is not the obligation of an artwork's audience to sit quietly and passively absorb anything that they are delivered - that is why we have a rich tradition of criticism and critical analysis that has evolved alongside artistic expression. (Again, I have to assume that you know this, and are just actively ignoring it.) Without such debate and such feedback, nothing would evolve, nothing would build upon what had come before it. All we would have to 'entertain' us would be meaningless, unedited free-associative slurge. Bioware itself even call for suggestions and feedback from their players - something that would not sit into your framework of willing, thoughtless compliance. (Again, you obviously know this, which makes me wonder why you claim it is not so?)

And I really don't know how many times I have to type this to you, but: you are using opinion too. I'm not sure where you get this arrogant notion that your personal subjective vision supersedes everyone else's - that your subjective interpretation is somehow 'fact' and 'logic' while everyone else is just 'opinion'. It's all opinion. Yours just like everyone else's.

As you are so quick to point out: you are not one of the writers. You cannot speak to what their intent was with any more certainty than anyone else; and no matter how many times you say 'strawman' or 'broad strokes' or 'personal opinions are subjective' or offer blurry, muddled non sequiturs like: 'I'm sure you'll be producing more contradictions here even when writing is based on opinion and logic is based on fact', you are still offering an opinion, and you should show some respect for others who are doing the same.

Yet again I say: you know all this. Which means either you are utterly unaware of the many contradictions you employ in your argument, and are therefore incapable of having a rational cohesive conversation (and I hope that's not true); or you are simply being openly, repeatedly contrarian to try and get people worked up (and I would hope that's not true either).

Please try to understand that everyone has a right to their viewpoint. Show some courtesy. It is not your job (nor your right) to demand that people embrace your perspective (which is just an opinion, after all). And no doubt if you continue to be so disrespectful to others, and to use such wild contradictions in your writing, it will eventually become impossible for anyone to engage with your posts meaningfully at all.

[ld1449]

Dray I'm just gonna come out and say this as much for your own sake as for everyone else here. Don't feed the imbecil - I mean troll.

Honestly, arguing with Blueprotoss is like arguing with a brick.

Infact, I take that back. The brick retains more and may even offer citations to the many lines of bull**** if offered a treat.

Just let it go and he'll leave eventually

[rekn2]

Blueprotoss wrote...

rekn2 wrote...

im not debating my points anymore, theyve been backed up by people with PhD.

Opinion is opinion yet the only people you should listen to is Bioware hence ME is their story.  Its like telling James Cameron to f off with Avatar, Ridley Scott with Alien, Lucas with Star Wars, Speilberg with Indiana Jones, and Christopher Nolan with Batman.

rekn2 wrote...

fictional writing is not like a painting. the artist is telling you what happened.

"rekn2 went to the grocery store to buy a flux capacitor." even though what i just said is fictitious it still must follow rules and guidelines of communication. i cant just type "hjhjfjdfhdgdgdsgsgsgfsgfd" and have it make any sense.

Its easy to say this when you yourself isn't a writer making thousands to millions of dollars.

rekn2 wrote...

@blueprotoss - YOU do not understand what i am saying.im through talking with you until you can give me a good debate.

If I had no understanding then I would be using opinion instead of logic like what you are currently doing.  Either way you're not willing to have a discussion since you don't want to have one in the 1st place based on your heavy use of logic fallacies.  Btw finger pointing isn't going to solve anything.

im not debating the contents im debating the structure and delivery. thats not opinion. ive already said in previous posts that the contents could have been delivered in a different way to make the story make sense. in fact the only content i dont like is starkid. harbinger shoudlve been in his place.


your arguement would make sense if i was commenting on me3's contents. like saying harbinger sucks or the fact that shep died is bad writing and i havent said anything remoltey close even in the slightest. ive even given examples to clarify my point, a point you dont understand. the fact that you dont understand my point doesnt invalidate or degrade my point at all in fact i welcome everyone here to give me an honest, well thought out, scientific debate on the structure of the story.so far ive only been backed up wether the poster realizes it or not.

[Redbelle]

arial wrote...

 The real reason the ending(s) were poorly recieved is quite simple.

since the day ME3 was anounced, people started speculating on what features it would have, how the story would progress, etc.

It came to the state where No game could realisticly match what fans expected.

When the game finally came out, and it could not live up to what people were sure it would be, people looked for every possible reason to blame for their dissatisfaction.

I couldn't hack a door. They magically opened before me. I had the 'open all doors' attachment in my omni tool that prevented me from playing the open sesame mini game.

I played the open sesame mini game in ME1 and 2 and was rewarded for my sucesses, and cruely thwarted should my failure arise.

ME3 didn't have these. They stripped the game mechanics back. Again! No Mako, no Hammerhead.

The only reason I didn't mind losing the Mako is that the developers made ME2 look amazing next to ME1. But alas, BW continued to strip game elements out, I suspect due to fan feedback, and replaced them with............ bug squat.

So in answer to the OP. Yes there was high expectation, but how can a game meet expectation when it doesn't even to try to match or make better past game mechanics? All ME3 did was tighten it's combat mechanics. But in ME1 and to a lesser extent 2 you had so much more to do than just combat.

ME is essentially a game about conflict so combat has to be a satisfying element of the game. But ME is more than just a drop off in a war zone game. It has quiet times as well like running around the citadel and the Normandy. These area's need things to do in them, or they are just boring run around to point A to hear Guy B begin cutscene C.

Gimme the janitor with a broken arm who can't control his roving space rodent zapper robot to play zap the pest. Then in later on ciadel missions, give me the robot so I can use it to scout ahead and find out what the opposition is. Just........ Gimme...... Something......... Fun........ To.........Do!!! Occaisionally.......... That isn't just more combat.

Modifié par Redbelle, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:23 .

[Blueprotoss]

drayfish wrote...

Artists can always lose their way, and no longer understand their own fiction. They are not 'God' in the curious way that you seem to presume (when it suits you). Yes, they are by all definitions the closest to the work they produce, but that does not make them the sole adjudicators on the text's meaning, and they can (if they are not mindful) utterly disconnect from the meaning of the work - sometimes even by being altogether too close to it.

It more so that "fans" will lose their way because their tastes and expectations will change before the artist would change.

drayfish wrote...

You cited George Lucas - a man who has himself acknowledged that Phantom Menace was not the greatest (ow - I just sprained my understatement muscle). Steven Spielberg has criticised the latest Indiana Jones. Bioware themselves have made fun of logical inconsistencies in their lore after the fact with characters like Conrad Verner. (You must know all this, but are intentionally pretending that it is not true.)

Thats a strawman in itself  because the Phantom Menace didn't need to be the greatest and Speilberg has always been criticized for his work like most directors in Hollywood.  Crrently you aren't using logic since you're using opinion.

drayfish wrote...

And so it is not the obligation of an artwork's audience to sit quietly and passively absorb anything that they are delivered - that is why we have a rich tradition of criticism and critical analysis that has evolved alongside artistic expression. (Again, I have to assume that you know this, and are just actively ignoring it.) Without such debate and such feedback, nothing would evolve, nothing would build upon what had come before it. All we would have to 'entertain' us would be meaningless, unedited free-associative slurge. Bioware itself even call for suggestions and feedback from their players - something that would not sit into your framework of willing, thoughtless compliance. (Again, you obviously know this, which makes me wonder why you claim it is not so?)

Art doesn't always work like that and the difference of art varies from person to person based on personal taste.

drayfish wrote...

And I really don't know how many times I have to type this to you, but: you are using opinion too. I'm not sure where you get this arrogant notion that your personal subjective vision supersedes everyone else's - that your subjective interpretation is somehow 'fact' and 'logic' while everyone else is just 'opinion'. It's all opinion. Yours just like everyone else's.

I'm not using opinion here because unlike you I can be objective without using opinion.

drayfish wrote...

As you are so quick to point out: you are not one of the writers. You cannot speak to what their intent was with any more certainty than anyone else; and no matter how many times you say 'strawman' or 'broad strokes' or 'personal opinions are subjective' or offer blurry, muddled non sequiturs like: 'I'm sure you'll be producing more contradictions here even when writing is based on opinion and logic is based on fact', you are still offering an opinion, and you should show some respect for others who are doing the same.

I never said I was a writer yet its ironic on how many people are being critcial about writing when they aren't writers to begin with.

drayfish wrote...

Yet again I say: you know all this. Which means either you are utterly unaware of the many contradictions you employ in your argument, and are therefore incapable of having a rational cohesive conversation (and I hope that's not true); or you are simply being openly, repeatedly contrarian to try and get people worked up (and I would hope that's not true either).

I don't know all but I do know the simple difference of what is or isn't opinion and fact.

drayfish wrote...

Please try to understand that everyone has a right to their viewpoint. Show some courtesy. It is not your job (nor your right) to demand that people embrace your perspective (which is just an opinion, after all). And no doubt if you continue to be so disrespectful to others, and to use such wild contradictions in your writing, it will eventually become impossible for anyone to engage with your posts meaningfully at all.

Insulting people still doesn't work and to you should learn to practice what you preach.

[Blueprotoss]

rekn2 wrote...

im not debating the contents im debating the structure and delivery. thats not opinion. ive already said in previous posts that the contents could have been delivered in a different way to make the story make sense. in fact the only content i dont like is starkid. harbinger shoudlve been in his place.

Writing in general is subjective hence why its based on opinion.

rekn2 wrote...

your arguement would make sense if i was commenting on me3's contents. like saying harbinger sucks or the fact that shep died is bad writing and i havent said anything remoltey close even in the slightest. ive even given examples to clarify my point, a point you dont understand. the fact that you dont understand my point doesnt invalidate or degrade my point at all in fact i welcome everyone here to give me an honest, well thought out, scientific debate on the structure of the story.so far ive only been backed up wether the poster realizes it or not.

Your examples are actually nippicks and its ironic that you are focusing on ME3.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:20 .

[rekn2]

writing is not subjective in the sense i am speaking of, youre backing up my point with every word you type.

"Writing in general is subjective hence why its based on opinion." you are following strict sentence structures to convey your point so that it makes sense. if you wouldve said " general subjective hence opinion writing is its" no one here would understand you. it doesnt matter if what you said was comedy drama fiction or not, you follow a specific path based on your language. all writing is the same, if you want to tell a coherent story you have to follow specific rules. these rules were broken. thats not opinion thats fact. how do you think anyone understands any writing at all?

[drayfish]

Blueprotoss wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Artists can always lose their way, and no longer understand their own fiction. They are not 'God' in the curious way that you seem to presume (when it suits you). Yes, they are by all definitions the closest to the work they produce, but that does not make them the sole adjudicators on the text's meaning, and they can (if they are not mindful) utterly disconnect from the meaning of the work - sometimes even by being altogether too close to it.

It more so that "fans" will lose their way because their tastes and expectations will change before the artist would change.

drayfish wrote...

You cited George Lucas - a man who has himself acknowledged that Phantom Menace was not the greatest (ow - I just sprained my understatement muscle). Steven Spielberg has criticised the latest Indiana Jones. Bioware themselves have made fun of logical inconsistencies in their lore after the fact with characters like Conrad Verner. (You must know all this, but are intentionally pretending that it is not true.)

Thats a strawman in itself  because the Phantom Menace didn't need to be the greatest and Speilberg has always been criticized for his work like most directors in Hollywood.  Crrently you aren't using logic since you're using opinion.

drayfish wrote...

And so it is not the obligation of an artwork's audience to sit quietly and passively absorb anything that they are delivered - that is why we have a rich tradition of criticism and critical analysis that has evolved alongside artistic expression. (Again, I have to assume that you know this, and are just actively ignoring it.) Without such debate and such feedback, nothing would evolve, nothing would build upon what had come before it. All we would have to 'entertain' us would be meaningless, unedited free-associative slurge. Bioware itself even call for suggestions and feedback from their players - something that would not sit into your framework of willing, thoughtless compliance. (Again, you obviously know this, which makes me wonder why you claim it is not so?)

Art doesn't always work like that and the difference of art varies from person to person based on personal taste.

drayfish wrote...

And I really don't know how many times I have to type this to you, but: you are using opinion too. I'm not sure where you get this arrogant notion that your personal subjective vision supersedes everyone else's - that your subjective interpretation is somehow 'fact' and 'logic' while everyone else is just 'opinion'. It's all opinion. Yours just like everyone else's.

I'm not using opinion here because unlike you I can be objective without using opinion.

drayfish wrote...

As you are so quick to point out: you are not one of the writers. You cannot speak to what their intent was with any more certainty than anyone else; and no matter how many times you say 'strawman' or 'broad strokes' or 'personal opinions are subjective' or offer blurry, muddled non sequiturs like: 'I'm sure you'll be producing more contradictions here even when writing is based on opinion and logic is based on fact', you are still offering an opinion, and you should show some respect for others who are doing the same.

I never said I was a writer yet its ironic on how many people are being critcial about writing when they aren't writers to begin with.

drayfish wrote...

Yet again I say: you know all this. Which means either you are utterly unaware of the many contradictions you employ in your argument, and are therefore incapable of having a rational cohesive conversation (and I hope that's not true); or you are simply being openly, repeatedly contrarian to try and get people worked up (and I would hope that's not true either).

I don't know all but I do know the simple difference of what is or isn't opinion and fact.

drayfish wrote...

Please try to understand that everyone has a right to their viewpoint. Show some courtesy. It is not your job (nor your right) to demand that people embrace your perspective (which is just an opinion, after all). And no doubt if you continue to be so disrespectful to others, and to use such wild contradictions in your writing, it will eventually become impossible for anyone to engage with your posts meaningfully at all.

Insulting people still doesn't work and to you should learn to practice what you preach.

ld1449 wrote...

Dray I'm just gonna come out and say this as much for your own sake as for everyone else here. Don't feed the imbecil - I mean troll.

Honestly, arguing with Blueprotoss is like arguing with a brick.

Infact, I take that back. The brick retains more and may even offer citations to the many lines of bull**** if offered a treat.

Just let it go and he'll leave eventually

@ ld1449:

Sadly, point taken.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Are people actually arguing with Blueprotoss? Time and time again the guy has demonstrated that he's either a troll or a moron.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

drayfish wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

rekn2 wrote...

im not debating my points anymore, theyve been backed up by people with PhD.

Opinion is opinion yet the only people you should listen to is Bioware hence ME is their story.  Its like telling James Cameron to f off with Avatar, Ridley Scott with Alien, Lucas with Star Wars, Speilberg with Indiana Jones, and Christopher Nolan with Batman.

rekn2 wrote...

fictional writing is not like a painting. the artist is telling you what happened.

"rekn2 went to the grocery store to buy a flux capacitor." even though what i just said is fictitious it still must follow rules and guidelines of communication. i cant just type "hjhjfjdfhdgdgdsgsgsgfsgfd" and have it make any sense.

Its easy to say this when you yourself isn't a writer making thousands to millions of dollars.

rekn2 wrote...

@blueprotoss - YOU do not understand what i am saying.im through talking with you until you can give me a good debate.

If I had no understanding then I would be using opinion instead of logic like what you are currently doing.  Either way you're not willing to have a discussion since you don't want to have one in the 1st place based on your heavy use of logic fallacies.  Btw finger pointing isn't going to solve anything.

Literally none of this made sense, Blueprotoss. ...Which I guess is an achievement, in a weird way.

lol I nearly spit out my dinner