461 réponses à ce sujet

[Dark_Caduceus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seboist wrote...
Smud is right on the money with the problem not being the last 10 minutes of ME3 but the very first 10 of ME2.

Get ready for people to tell you how awesome ME2's intro was. <_<

From an action standpoint, it was awesome. From a logical standpoint, I would say that it was our first introduction to Bioware's "space magic".

No that was Biotics and Mass Effect fields.

Those had explainations in the codex. Shepard's body surviving re-entry into the atmosphere of a planet and then being rebuilt from scratch is not explained in the codex. I don't think any explaination would go over well.

So it wasn't in the codex, why does that matter? Is the codex the be-all,end-all to the lore now? Or can the lore actually change? 

And hell, considering the logic behind this, the explaination in-game, which amounts to time, wealth and cutting edge technology, should be sufficient enough. In fact, its more than enough where a codex entry is unecessary to explain anything, other than the fact that Shepard was ressurected.

See, this is what a space fantasy is all about. The hard science is a bonus but its still layered with bull**** technobabble that we take for granted. The truth of the matter is the story in a fantastical setting is what is more important, so putting forth science to have it make sense, and then saying that the lack of entry in a codex is why its nonsensiqal, is stupid. The question should be, does Shepard's ressurection make sense in the grand scheme of the storyline, from beginning to end? That you can argue if it has merit, not if it made sense because of "space magic"

The problem with the "time, money, and cutting edge tech" explaintion is that it's too in much in the realm of fantasy. No one would question such a thing in Skyrim or some other fantasy game. But ME is sci-fi that is supposed to try to remain grounded. The player knows that a body re-entering a planet's atmosphere has little chance of being intact at all, let alone discovered and put back together good as new.

It's just too much. As for the other question, I don't think Shepard's death was significant at all. I think it becomes irrelevant as soon as he wakes up on the table.

I did say this earlier, but Mass Effect is not sci-fi in the normal sense, it is Space Opera, a sub-genre of the generalized Sci-Fi that is supposed to be more fantastical.

So the science behind re-entering the planet's atmosphere is of little consequence to reality. Same can be said with the tiny breathing masks some characters wear while in open space or places with no air, or the aforementioned biotic fields and mass relays. Hell, the reapers themselves are pretty much impossible as an entity since they are synthetic systems humpbacking organic life. 

In the realm of hard Sci-Fi, it is too much. In the realm of a Space Opera, its totally acceptable. And you got to remember this is what BioWare said the game was all about, it was their own Space Opera. 

As to point two, I think his death was significant because it works on several levels; for starters in a gameplay stance, it gives us a clean slate. From a storypoint stance it allows Shepard to become actively involved with the enemy again, introduces the human antagonist, plants seeds for future storylines, both personal and more wide-spreading, and closes the second part of the trilogy with a degree of hope that will not be seen in Mass Effect 3, which is a part of the storyline of 3 I loathed. 

From a more philosophical point of view, it is Shepard following both mythological and Christian elements of storytelling, the death and ressurection of the hero, who undergoes a major change. 

So for me it works on three levels. Does it work that way for others, thats not my place to say. 

So you can forgive Mass Effect 2's poorly explained, and at times contradictory story elements because it fits into a specific sub-genre, and it's part of that sub-genre because it has fantastical and poorly explained story elements.

Fascinating.

[LinksOcarina]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you've acknowledged that Mass Effect 2 and 3 have bad stories, but you've decided to continue liking them. Okay, well there you go.

I acknowedge that the stories have problems, yes (including Mass Effect 1, you forgot that one) but those problems do not equate bad-story telling. Nor do they really matter much for my own enjoyment.

For example, only thing that really bothered me in a narrative sense in Mass Effect 3 was the lack of any moment of catharsis to let it sink in, pre-extended cut. It also lacked moments of hope, something Mass Effect 3 needed desprately because the story was overly depressing. We had levity yes, but it was always under the preface of "were going to die, so lets live it up for a moment." But that doesn't make the story wholly bad, it just makes it's tone uneven, something BioWare has never gotten right with any game they make anyway. 

So no, I don't think the stories are bad at all. I just recognize they have issues. That is kind of the point I was making before, the issues are insignificant because the enjoyment of the story becomes subjective by the person. 

[Binary_Helix 1]

Said it before and I'll say it again ME is good because it strikes the right balance between science and fantasy.

Star Trek is too science focused = boring. Star Wars is too fantasy focused = unrealistic. ME was just right until recently.

[David7204]

Allow me to go ahead and put a stop to this.

I seriously doubt Shepard would "burn up" in the atmosphere. Meteoroids burn up because they move through space at very high speeds, but Shepard would only be moving at whatever speed he accumulated from the planet's gravity. Skydivers hit terminal velocity all the time; they don't burn up.

The argument I usually see is that space shuttles burn up when they hit atmosphere, don't they? Well, the Columbia Space Shuttle was moving at about 8,000 meters per second when it burned up in atmosphere. Alchera's gravitational field is .85g. For Shepard's body to achieve that high of a velocity before it hit atmosphere, he would have had to fall almost 4,000 kilometers. (It would actually be more, since the gravitational force in upper atmosphere wouldn't be as strong as the surface gravity.)

V^2 = Vo^2 + 2a(Xf-Xi)

64,000,000 = 0 + (2)(9.81 x .85)(Xf-Xi)

(Xf-Xi) = 3,837,620 meters.

For the record, the radius of Earth is 6378 kilometers.100 kilometers is usually regarded as the edge between atmosphere and space on Earth.

Since velocity is proportional to the square root of the distance, Shepard would only be moving at a tiny fraction of that speed. Less than 1%, probably.

[LinksOcarina]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you can forgive Mass Effect 2's poorly explained, and at times contradictory story elements because it fits into a specific sub-genre, and it's part of that sub-genre because it has fantastical and poorly explained story elements.

Fascinating.

No, read my response above.

The sub-genre is the reason why aspects such as Shepard's ressurection don't need a scientific explainaton or a codex entry to be explained, other than in-game explainainations of time and resources. It's like why George Lucas decided to never fully explain the force in the first three Star Wars movies, before he himself ****ed that up by saying midichlorians and giving an explaination for it. 

The elements need to fit of course, the explaination behing how they fit is whats not necessary. Shepard dying and being ressurected I can see in Mass Effect, if only because it was so damn hard and took so long to do it. And considering how they reconstructed him is plausible given the technology available in the Mass Effect world, I fail to see how this is inconsistant with the main story. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 novembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you've acknowledged that Mass Effect 2 and 3 have bad stories, but you've decided to continue liking them. Okay, well there you go.

I acknowedge that the stories have problems, yes (including Mass Effect 1, you forgot that one) but those problems do not equate bad-story telling. Nor do they really matter much for my own enjoyment.

For example, only thing that really bothered me in a narrative sense in Mass Effect 3 was the lack of any moment of catharsis to let it sink in, pre-extended cut. It also lacked moments of hope, something Mass Effect 3 needed desprately because the story was overly depressing. We had levity yes, but it was always under the preface of "were going to die, so lets live it up for a moment." But that doesn't make the story wholly bad, it just makes it's tone uneven, something BioWare has never gotten right with any game they make anyway. 

So no, I don't think the stories are bad at all. I just recognize they have issues. That is kind of the point I was making before, the issues are insignificant because the enjoyment of the story becomes subjective by the person. 

But we've already established that you can enjoy any story you like, even if like Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, they are trash.

You keep falling back on this subjective story interpretation. But stories can, and are, objectively measured in many ways. When a story begins with a plot contrivance, that's a flaw which contributes to it being a bad story. If your threshold for story telling is low; well that explains why you like Mass Effect 2 and 3.

If the myriad of flaws in Mass Effect 2 and 3 doesn't bother you, fine, go on enjoying your crappy story. But your attempts to persuade individuals who actually critically analyze stories will invariably fail.

[LinksOcarina]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you've acknowledged that Mass Effect 2 and 3 have bad stories, but you've decided to continue liking them. Okay, well there you go.

I acknowedge that the stories have problems, yes (including Mass Effect 1, you forgot that one) but those problems do not equate bad-story telling. Nor do they really matter much for my own enjoyment.

For example, only thing that really bothered me in a narrative sense in Mass Effect 3 was the lack of any moment of catharsis to let it sink in, pre-extended cut. It also lacked moments of hope, something Mass Effect 3 needed desprately because the story was overly depressing. We had levity yes, but it was always under the preface of "were going to die, so lets live it up for a moment." But that doesn't make the story wholly bad, it just makes it's tone uneven, something BioWare has never gotten right with any game they make anyway. 

So no, I don't think the stories are bad at all. I just recognize they have issues. That is kind of the point I was making before, the issues are insignificant because the enjoyment of the story becomes subjective by the person. 

But we've already established that you can enjoy any story you like, even if like Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, they are trash.

You keep falling back on this subjective story interpretation. But stories can, and are, objectively measured in many ways. When a story begins with a plot contrivance, that's a flaw which contributes to it being a bad story. If your threshold for story telling is low; well that explains why you like Mass Effect 2 and 3.

If the myriad of flaws in Mass Effect 2 and 3 doesn't bother you, fine, go on enjoying your crappy story. But your attempts to persuade individuals who actually critically analyze stories will invariably fail.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. If you want to analyze things and be overly critical, thats your perogative, but that does not make it objectively bad in any sense other than your subjective opinion and own criteria. 

That part I take issue with, because such a medium can't be measured through objectivity. That's like saying poems can objectively be measured through its use of  iambic pentameter. 

Simply put, objectivity is non-existant in artistic endeavors, from painting to writing to poetry to photogrophy. It's why museums can have a picasso next to a duchamp, or book stores have Edgar Allen Poe next to whoever wrote Twilight. Its based on tastes, not given measurements. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 novembre 2012 - 01:36 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you can forgive Mass Effect 2's poorly explained, and at times contradictory story elements because it fits into a specific sub-genre, and it's part of that sub-genre because it has fantastical and poorly explained story elements.

Fascinating.

No, read my response above.

The sub-genre is the reason why aspects such as Shepard's ressurection don't need a scientific explainaton or a codex entry to be explained, other than in-game explainainations of time and resources. It's like why George Lucas decided to never fully explain the force in the first three Star Wars movies, before he himself ****ed that up by saying midichlorians and giving an explaination for it. 

The elements need to fit of course, the explaination behing how they fit is whats not necessary. Shepard dying and being ressurected I can see in Mass Effect, if only because it was so damn hard and took so long to do it. And considering how they reconstructed him is plausible given the technology available in the Mass Effect world, I fail to see how this is inconsistant with the main story. 

How is Shepard's reconstruction supported at all by information in the story? All they did was put some glowing metal devices in him and say it took years of work and billions of credits. It's inconsistent because we:

A. Have no precedent for reviving people after planetary re-rentry and several years in the real world.
B. No specifics about the revival were given in game.
C. The Lazarus project is never used again.

So, because it's space-opera (whatever the hell this really means) you can include galaxy changing events which are pivotal to the story (like the Lazarus) project with no explanation?

So because reviving Shepard took a long time, and was (ostensibly difficult) it makes clinical immortality plausible? If the Illusive Man spent 2 years digging holes 12 hours a day, would that explain Shepard's revival? Because so far all you've got is; "...it was so damn hard and took so long to do it". Well I'm sorry, but if that satisfies you, then you must really not understand story-telling.

Okay, apparently "space opera" is one of your handy euphamisms to mean "crappy story".

[Dark_Caduceus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you've acknowledged that Mass Effect 2 and 3 have bad stories, but you've decided to continue liking them. Okay, well there you go.

I acknowedge that the stories have problems, yes (including Mass Effect 1, you forgot that one) but those problems do not equate bad-story telling. Nor do they really matter much for my own enjoyment.

For example, only thing that really bothered me in a narrative sense in Mass Effect 3 was the lack of any moment of catharsis to let it sink in, pre-extended cut. It also lacked moments of hope, something Mass Effect 3 needed desprately because the story was overly depressing. We had levity yes, but it was always under the preface of "were going to die, so lets live it up for a moment." But that doesn't make the story wholly bad, it just makes it's tone uneven, something BioWare has never gotten right with any game they make anyway. 

So no, I don't think the stories are bad at all. I just recognize they have issues. That is kind of the point I was making before, the issues are insignificant because the enjoyment of the story becomes subjective by the person. 

But we've already established that you can enjoy any story you like, even if like Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, they are trash.

You keep falling back on this subjective story interpretation. But stories can, and are, objectively measured in many ways. When a story begins with a plot contrivance, that's a flaw which contributes to it being a bad story. If your threshold for story telling is low; well that explains why you like Mass Effect 2 and 3.

If the myriad of flaws in Mass Effect 2 and 3 doesn't bother you, fine, go on enjoying your crappy story. But your attempts to persuade individuals who actually critically analyze stories will invariably fail.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. If you want to analyze things and be overly critical, thats your perogative, but that does not make it objectively bad in any sense other than your subjective opinion and own criteria. 

That part I take issue with, because such a medium can't be measured through objectivity. That's like saying poems can objectively be measured through its use of  iambic pentameter. 

Except I'm not arguing that poems can be measured via their pentameter, I'm arguing that a narrative videogame can be measured given the degree and quanitity of flaws that the narrative contains. No more straw men please.

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 19 novembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Said it before and I'll say it again ME is good because it strikes the right balance between science and fantasy.

Star Trek is too science focused = boring. Star Wars is too fantasy focused = unrealistic. ME was just right until recently.

Funny, because I feel that neither Star Trek nor Star Wars are consistent, and are both rather lacking in the actual "science department" but Star Wars is generally more cinematic and exciting than Mass Effect and Star Trek is more mature and insightful than Mass Effect (which could have brought up religion vs. atheism, the nature of faith, the ethics of abortion, genocide, creating life, co-existence, and foreign relations but instead became a summer blockbuster level story with plot contrivance for the purpose of sensationalism).

Maybe Mass Effect 1 struck a nice balance; but the series as a whole? Now way.

[LinksOcarina]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you can forgive Mass Effect 2's poorly explained, and at times contradictory story elements because it fits into a specific sub-genre, and it's part of that sub-genre because it has fantastical and poorly explained story elements.

Fascinating.

No, read my response above.

The sub-genre is the reason why aspects such as Shepard's ressurection don't need a scientific explainaton or a codex entry to be explained, other than in-game explainainations of time and resources. It's like why George Lucas decided to never fully explain the force in the first three Star Wars movies, before he himself ****ed that up by saying midichlorians and giving an explaination for it. 

The elements need to fit of course, the explaination behing how they fit is whats not necessary. Shepard dying and being ressurected I can see in Mass Effect, if only because it was so damn hard and took so long to do it. And considering how they reconstructed him is plausible given the technology available in the Mass Effect world, I fail to see how this is inconsistant with the main story. 

How is Shepard's reconstruction supported at all by information in the story? All they did was put some glowing metal devices in him and say it took years of work and billions of credits. It's inconsistent because we:

A. Have no precedent for reviving people after planetary re-rentry and several years in the real world.
B. No specifics about the revival were given in game.
C. The Lazarus project is never used again.

So, because it's space-opera (whatever the hell this really means) you can include galaxy changing events which are pivotal to the story (like the Lazarus) project with no explanation?

So because reviving Shepard took a long time, and was (ostensibly difficult) it makes clinical immortality plausible? If the Illusive Man spent 2 years digging holes 12 hours a day, would that explain Shepard's revival? Because so far all you've got is; "...it was so damn hard and took so long to do it". Well I'm sorry, but if that satisfies you, then you must really not understand story-telling.

Okay, apparently "space opera" is one of your handy euphamisms to mean "crappy story".

First off, here is what Space Opera means. If you don't understand its meaning you have no business being in the discussion to begin with, and you certainly have no reason to use the term as a blanket statement to insult me. 

Are you done reading yet? Yes? Let's go on, shall we? 

To the three points made.

A. No precedent needs to exist, since Shepard is obviously the first case of this happening. This makes him the de-facto precedent to the revival process as a whole. 

B. The specifics regarding how it works, I presume? The only explaination given was the nano-technology that Cerberus paid for, which was mentioned by Miranda I believe in Mass Effect 2 was how it was done. We also saw the vignettes of the process happening in the tiny opening movie, Shepards heart pumping again and his bloodstream starting up through the use of machines. 

So the question again is simple, does a full on explaination matter? If they said in game that nanomachines revived his bloodstream and they put a metal plate in his head, it would be ok and plausible? If this technology existed in Mass Effect 1 would it be ok then as well, or would it be a story issue there too? 

C. Since this was privately funded and kept secret, why would it be a process seen again? To that point, since they say in game the purpose was to bring back one person (Commander Shepard) is it likely that it will be used again? Probably no. So how is this inconsistant? 

As for it being galaxy-changing, I agree it can have that effect, but that doesn't mean its readily available to everyone either. It  also doesn't make immortality possible at all, since they reconstructed the body from its former formmeaning they built Shepard as Shepard was. It also doesn't stop you from dying either, so equating it to clinical immortality is ridiculous at best since all it did was take two years to revive one person. 

If you really want to go realistic for a second, that much time and resources to make one person live again would be fruitless in a commercial market. So expecting it to be a major revelation given the current storyline of Mass Effect, the impending invasion of giant flying space robots who want to kill us all and turn us into husks, I think project lazarus can wait a bit. 

[LinksOcarina]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you've acknowledged that Mass Effect 2 and 3 have bad stories, but you've decided to continue liking them. Okay, well there you go.

I acknowedge that the stories have problems, yes (including Mass Effect 1, you forgot that one) but those problems do not equate bad-story telling. Nor do they really matter much for my own enjoyment.

For example, only thing that really bothered me in a narrative sense in Mass Effect 3 was the lack of any moment of catharsis to let it sink in, pre-extended cut. It also lacked moments of hope, something Mass Effect 3 needed desprately because the story was overly depressing. We had levity yes, but it was always under the preface of "were going to die, so lets live it up for a moment." But that doesn't make the story wholly bad, it just makes it's tone uneven, something BioWare has never gotten right with any game they make anyway. 

So no, I don't think the stories are bad at all. I just recognize they have issues. That is kind of the point I was making before, the issues are insignificant because the enjoyment of the story becomes subjective by the person. 

But we've already established that you can enjoy any story you like, even if like Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, they are trash.

You keep falling back on this subjective story interpretation. But stories can, and are, objectively measured in many ways. When a story begins with a plot contrivance, that's a flaw which contributes to it being a bad story. If your threshold for story telling is low; well that explains why you like Mass Effect 2 and 3.

If the myriad of flaws in Mass Effect 2 and 3 doesn't bother you, fine, go on enjoying your crappy story. But your attempts to persuade individuals who actually critically analyze stories will invariably fail.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. If you want to analyze things and be overly critical, thats your perogative, but that does not make it objectively bad in any sense other than your subjective opinion and own criteria. 

That part I take issue with, because such a medium can't be measured through objectivity. That's like saying poems can objectively be measured through its use of  iambic pentameter. 

Except I'm not arguing that poems can be measured via their pentameter, I'm arguing that a narrative videogame can be measured given the degree and quanitity of flaws that the narrative contains. No more straw men please.

But isen't your own criteria a straw man as well? I mean, any attempt at objectively measuring a narrative through whatever criteria you have to proclaim it as good or bad again falls under a subjective opinion.

Let's probe a for a moment and just ask some questions then.

What is the criteria you are trying to follow, for objective storytelling?

Is it something that can be measured through a forumula of some kind? Is there a ratio of what is acceptable versus what is not?

Is it through literary theory and the words of scholars that makes you see these errors as shoddy storytelling?

What is your own criteria and what is an example of a good work that fits it? And how does this objectivity you have not adhere to an informal fallacy? 

ETA: Sadly I need some sleep for work tomorrow, but we can continue this discussion another day. If you don't feel like posting answers here, PM me i'm open to discuss things more. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 novembre 2012 - 02:06 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you can forgive Mass Effect 2's poorly explained, and at times contradictory story elements because it fits into a specific sub-genre, and it's part of that sub-genre because it has fantastical and poorly explained story elements.

Fascinating.

No, read my response above.

The sub-genre is the reason why aspects such as Shepard's ressurection don't need a scientific explainaton or a codex entry to be explained, other than in-game explainainations of time and resources. It's like why George Lucas decided to never fully explain the force in the first three Star Wars movies, before he himself ****ed that up by saying midichlorians and giving an explaination for it. 

The elements need to fit of course, the explaination behing how they fit is whats not necessary. Shepard dying and being ressurected I can see in Mass Effect, if only because it was so damn hard and took so long to do it. And considering how they reconstructed him is plausible given the technology available in the Mass Effect world, I fail to see how this is inconsistant with the main story. 

How is Shepard's reconstruction supported at all by information in the story? All they did was put some glowing metal devices in him and say it took years of work and billions of credits. It's inconsistent because we:

A. Have no precedent for reviving people after planetary re-rentry and several years in the real world.
B. No specifics about the revival were given in game.
C. The Lazarus project is never used again.

So, because it's space-opera (whatever the hell this really means) you can include galaxy changing events which are pivotal to the story (like the Lazarus) project with no explanation?

So because reviving Shepard took a long time, and was (ostensibly difficult) it makes clinical immortality plausible? If the Illusive Man spent 2 years digging holes 12 hours a day, would that explain Shepard's revival? Because so far all you've got is; "...it was so damn hard and took so long to do it". Well I'm sorry, but if that satisfies you, then you must really not understand story-telling.

Okay, apparently "space opera" is one of your handy euphamisms to mean "crappy story".

First off, here is what Space Opera means. If you don't understand its meaning you have no business being in the discussion to begin with, and you certainly have no reason to use the term as a blanket statement to insult me. 

Are you done reading yet? Yes? Let's go on, shall we? 

To the three points made.

A. No precedent needs to exist, since Shepard is obviously the first case of this happening. This makes him the de-facto precedent to the revival process as a whole. 

B. The specifics regarding how it works, I presume? The only explaination given was the nano-technology that Cerberus paid for, which was mentioned by Miranda I believe in Mass Effect 2 was how it was done. We also saw the vignettes of the process happening in the tiny opening movie, Shepards heart pumping again and his bloodstream starting up through the use of machines. 

So the question again is simple, does a full on explaination matter? If they said in game that nanomachines revived his bloodstream and they put a metal plate in his head, it would be ok and plausible? If this technology existed in Mass Effect 1 would it be ok then as well, or would it be a story issue there too? 

C. Since this was privately funded and kept secret, why would it be a process seen again? To that point, since they say in game the purpose was to bring back one person (Commander Shepard) is it likely that it will be used again? Probably no. So how is this inconsistant? 

As for it being galaxy-changing, I agree it can have that effect, but that doesn't mean its readily available to everyone either. It  also doesn't make immortality possible at all, since they reconstructed the body from its former formmeaning they built Shepard as Shepard was. It also doesn't stop you from dying either, so equating it to clinical immortality is ridiculous at best since all it did was take two years to revive one person. 

If you really want to go realistic for a second, that much time and resources to make one person live again would be fruitless in a commercial market. So expecting it to be a major revelation given the current storyline of Mass Effect, the impending invasion of giant flying space robots who want to kill us all and turn us into husks, I think project lazarus can wait a bit. 

Okay, well, as your own article states: "As David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer
note in their 2006 anthology of space operas, "there is no general
agreement as to what [space opera] is, which writers are the best
examples, or even which works are space opera".[1]
They further note that space opera has had several key and different
definitions throughout its history; definitions that were significantly
affected by literary politics.[1] They argue that "what used to be science fantasy is now space opera, and what used to be space opera is entirely forgotten."[1]"

Now,
with that in mind. At no point did the article mention that space opera
are devoid of reasonable explanations to support events in the story.
And even if it did, it wouldn't matter because genre isn't an excuse for bad story-telling. If the genre, by definition, is one in which important events have no adequate explanation and are simply invoked by the writers for convenience, then it's a really stupid genre.

Far from using the genre to insult you, you're using the genre to defend the crappy stories you seem to enjoy so much.

Now:

A. A precedent needs to exist unless the event's possiblity is supported by evidence in the story. We don't question that humans in the Mass Effect unvierse need to drinkw ater, because that's a unviersal human necessity observable in the real world. Now, if we're to have a plot element involving reconstruction of "meat and tubes" into an enhanced cyborg, we need textual support from the story itself.

B. Showing Shepard's heart pumping and the like doesn't mean anything other than that the Lazarus project worked, but Miranda herself said it was a success, so who cares. You could replace the Lazarus project with "A space wizard revives Shepard" and having a vignette with Shepard's biological functions retarting wouldn't make that anymore plausible or consistent; indeed, the Lazarus project from a narrative standpoint is pretty well indistuinguishable from space wizardry. Now if they explained that "nanomachines revived his bloodstream and they put a metal plate in his head" it would still be stupid, but it would be better than what.

Other stories, ones that aren't "Triple A" with story-telling at the forefront of their marketing campaigns have implemented nanotechnology much more effectively than Mass Effect 2. Take for example Crysis 2 which involves a "revived" protagonist: http://www.youtube.c...njfUE0#t=12m10s

So, when we say "hey, how did the protagonist come back to life, and how has he been shot at and tossed around the entire game without dying?" we actually have a plausible explanation within the context of the story via the "Nanosuit". By reading documents throughout the story, more information is given on the Nanosuit and how it functions, and waht it does to the operator, and how it can bring somebody back from death, and even keep a person's consciousness alive even when the body should have died ages ago due to massive injuuries.

Then you have multiple flashbacks which actually show how the protagonist got the suit, why, etc.

Crytek, whatever their other errors might be were very smart in that they hired a biologist/writer, Peter Watts to write their story. So the Nanosuit is actually plausible, and consistent within the story, along with the revival plot element. Much more so than Mass Effect 2.

C. For one, it's a groundbreaking discovery, any information regarding which could amke someone like Watson rich beyond belief. So him motivation for betrayal is inconsistent. Also, logically speaking, it makes no sense to spend all that money, and time, and resources jsut to bring back Shepard because the Collector threat could have been ended ages ago if the Illusive Man just bought a couple thousand Guardian Defence systems for the colonies.

[Kushan101]

Good video. He does get excessively nitpicky at times but his analysis of the Catalysts "argument" was pretty much spot on.

[FOX216BC]

David7204 wrote...

Aside from Synthesis, which I agree is nonsense, Mass Effect does it better than 95% of what's out there and a hell of a lot better than games like Halo and Deus Ex.

Still it is the Epic game that shoots itself at the end.
And that's my problem with ME3.
comparing it to other game is nonsense.
Halo is made for Halo fans (at least 343 doesn't try to go mainstream like EA), let them judge it. 

Modifié par FOX216BC, 19 novembre 2012 - 03:50 .

[Maxster_]

LinksOcarina wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Really, ME3 "butchering" the lore, etc, etc, is overstating and exaggerating it. It's hardly butchered, or ruined.

Really, now? Who cares about having opposing force with consistent capabilities and motives when you can have uber awesome space battles WITH LAZORS!

Why would the Reapers have bothered with Sovereigns increasingly convoluted and unlikely to succeed plans (Rachni wars and Geth invasion) ?) when they could have just invaded (before we had a chance to reverse-engineer their technology)?
Do you seriously believe that the writers had this planned out when they wrote ME1?

Or what's the point of ME2, exactly? What did they need the Collectors for, exactly given that they were gonna invade well before they could have finished the thing? Why would the Reapers bother with any of this?

So yeah, giving the Reapers the capabilities to travel to Council space for free breaks the series, and resulted in the need for a Crucible-like device, although arguably that happened in ME2's Arrival DLC.

Soverign was the scout who was going to open the door, so his plans were basically to start the cycle by driving a war, and then forcing the doors open, which failed because the Protheans shut down the Keepers. So he had to do it on its own and failed. 

So Soverign was basically the doorkeeper waiting for the moment to strike. After he failed, the Reapers decided to go on their own, and it took them three and a half years to get there. they also wanted to eliminate Shepard and start the process of eliminating humanity, hence the collectors involvement.

So honestly, why is this difficult to understand? 

Sure, reapers are retarded. They waited for thousands of years for lulz.
How those retarded creatures even managed to create Citadel trap, and why they even need it anyway, if they can just stomp everything without losses?
And that is even without the Catalyst. With him, everything is more retarded - he just sat on Citadel, watching Sovereign and Harbringer fails for lulz.


BW-grade z-movie level storytelling.

[RiouHotaru]

Fedi.St wrote...

trolls trying to justify anything @ face value from the ending depart from this thread.


By watching this video I'm more and more convinced on the twilight god's deception theory.
http://social.biowar...ndex/13419372/1

And more and more convinced that bioware if goes for a sequel WILL CANON the destroy ending.

Twilight God's entire theory rides on the Catalyst being a lair and misdirecting you, which he assumes from the start.  The problem is that Leviathan proved the Catalyst isn't lying.  Twilight God attempted after Leviathan to retroactively say the Leviathan's weren't honest either, to help support his original theory, which would fall apart if the DLC's implications were right (which they were).

He's also as nit-picky as Smudboy.  He takes tiny graphical details like the color of Shepard's eyes and says that proves him correct on things.

He's as bad as Smudboy.

And most of Smudboy's problems arise from the fact he wanted the game to tell him every little detail.  He did the same thing back in Mass Effect 2.  He's a rather staunch (if unknowing) advocate of the removal of player agency.

[Nimrodell]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

trolls trying to justify anything @ face value from the ending depart from this thread.


By watching this video I'm more and more convinced on the twilight god's deception theory.
http://social.biowar...ndex/13419372/1

And more and more convinced that bioware if goes for a sequel WILL CANON the destroy ending.

Twilight God's entire theory rides on the Catalyst being a lair and misdirecting you, which he assumes from the start.  The problem is that Leviathan proved the Catalyst isn't lying.  Twilight God attempted after Leviathan to retroactively say the Leviathan's weren't honest either, to help support his original theory, which would fall apart if the DLC's implications were right (which they were).

He's also as nit-picky as Smudboy.  He takes tiny graphical details like the color of Shepard's eyes and says that proves him correct on things.

He's as bad as Smudboy.

And most of Smudboy's problems arise from the fact he wanted the game to tell him every little detail.  He did the same thing back in Mass Effect 2.  He's a rather staunch (if unknowing) advocate of the removal of player agency.

RiouHotaru, I had much appreciation for your threads and the work you've done before ME3 and again, I'm finding myself in supporting your reply (tbh I wouldn't even bother if you didn't post on this thread). Smudboy is forgetting one tiny bit in his reviews and he should be ashamed 'cause of it - if he was just a simple gamer that hated Mass Effect trilogy, he would not bother to buy all three games and then go through all this trouble of making videos trying to ask questions and point what's wrong according to him. I have one simple answer, btw, Mass Effect is a game, not a bloody Tolstoy story where the narrator is exploring the fate of morally fallen woman in 19th century. This is not high literature, it's bloody game, and a good one, for that matters. Ok, so many didn't like the ending, but also so many forgot the beauty of three games before that ending... and I tell ya, BSN, you're so full of...  AUTOCENSORED. Smudboy should really do something truly useful with his skills (not being sarcastic or rude, I mean it) - he should focus his energy on creating something unique that would actually help in education - but until he does that, he's just one sorry nitpicking arse, a person that has skill and a bit of a knowledge that's using those in wrong directions. Btw, if he's so smart and omnipotent, why didn't he create a nice RPG Sci-Fi trilogy? And he claims he finds ME trilogy absurd and silly, and then spends so much time on videos that are actually covering the whole trilogy... What an awesome liar and pompous arse.

People, never forget, Mass Effect is a video game, designed for fun and time-sinks and it accomplished so much more than other video games - people actually learned terms from theory of literature and had fun along the way. The only hubris is... Mac Walters and Casey Hudson thought they can put gaming on higher level and discovered, unfortunately, too late, that people actually lie in forum posts and feedback. Majority on forums, even anonimous, is actually full of BS and lying (even when anonimous we crave for more attention and 'being popular', set standards... and lets face it, most prom queens won't even see these posts, so kinda, all lying (and I had read all those posts before ME3 was released, so I know what I'm talking about)).
Smudboy is educated person but also one that is frustrated - and as I said, he should put his energy in something more useful - might actually do some good. Otherwise, he's just one pompous arse that forgot that Mass Effect is actually a video game, a limited artistic form since it has its boundaries in what was known from Andy Warhal's times - a consumer's or popular art.

I'm just amazed with a fact that he again spent his time creating this 'hate' video... wonderful, wasted talent and time and the person that keeps lying to himself that his objective is to be an impartial critic. I'll take him seriously, when he actually recognizes the genre and the fact that he's playing a fookin' game... And if he wants to discuss serious literature and the interpretation or problems in it, he's more than welcome (so far, I can only say for him - stupid git, a dodgy way to spend time on making online lecture - maybe he's just alone, like we all are).

[Dark_Caduceus]

Nimrodell wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

trolls trying to justify anything @ face value from the ending depart from this thread.


By watching this video I'm more and more convinced on the twilight god's deception theory.
http://social.biowar...ndex/13419372/1

And more and more convinced that bioware if goes for a sequel WILL CANON the destroy ending.

Twilight God's entire theory rides on the Catalyst being a lair and misdirecting you, which he assumes from the start.  The problem is that Leviathan proved the Catalyst isn't lying.  Twilight God attempted after Leviathan to retroactively say the Leviathan's weren't honest either, to help support his original theory, which would fall apart if the DLC's implications were right (which they were).

He's also as nit-picky as Smudboy.  He takes tiny graphical details like the color of Shepard's eyes and says that proves him correct on things.

He's as bad as Smudboy.

And most of Smudboy's problems arise from the fact he wanted the game to tell him every little detail.  He did the same thing back in Mass Effect 2.  He's a rather staunch (if unknowing) advocate of the removal of player agency.

RiouHotaru, I had much appreciation for your threads and the work you've done before ME3 and again, I'm finding myself in supporting your reply (tbh I wouldn't even bother if you didn't post on this thread). Smudboy is forgetting one tiny bit in his reviews and he should be ashamed 'cause of it - if he was just a simple gamer that hated Mass Effect trilogy, he would not bother to buy all three games and then go through all this trouble of making videos trying to ask questions and point what's wrong according to him. I have one simple answer, btw, Mass Effect is a game, not a bloody Tolstoy story where the narrator is exploring the fate of morally fallen woman in 19th century. This is not high literature, it's bloody game, and a good one, for that matters. Ok, so many didn't like the ending, but also so many forgot the beauty of three games before that ending... and I tell ya, BSN, you're so full of...  AUTOCENSORED. Smudboy should really do something truly useful with his skills (not being sarcastic or rude, I mean it) - he should focus his energy on creating something unique that would actually help in education - but until he does that, he's just one sorry nitpicking arse, a person that has skill and a bit of a knowledge that's using those in wrong directions. Btw, if he's so smart and omnipotent, why didn't he create a nice RPG Sci-Fi trilogy? And he claims he finds ME trilogy absurd and silly, and then spends so much time on videos that are actually covering the whole trilogy... What an awesome liar and pompous arse.

People, never forget, Mass Effect is a video game, designed for fun and time-sinks and it accomplished so much more than other video games - people actually learned terms from theory of literature and had fun along the way. The only hubris is... Mac Walters and Casey Hudson thought they can put gaming on higher level and discovered, unfortunately, too late, that people actually lie in forum posts and feedback. Majority on forums, even anonimous, is actually full of BS and lying (even when anonimous we crave for more attention and 'being popular', set standards... and lets face it, most prom queens won't even see these posts, so kinda, all lying (and I had read all those posts before ME3 was released, so I know what I'm talking about)).
Smudboy is educated person but also one that is frustrated - and as I said, he should put his energy in something more useful - might actually do some good. Otherwise, he's just one pompous arse that forgot that Mass Effect is actually a video game, a limited artistic form since it has its boundaries in what was known from Andy Warhal's times - a consumer's or popular art.

I'm just amazed with a fact that he again spent his time creating this 'hate' video... wonderful, wasted talent and time and the person that keeps lying to himself that his objective is to be an impartial critic. I'll take him seriously, when he actually recognizes the genre and the fact that he's playing a fookin' game... And if he wants to discuss serious literature and the interpretation or problems in it, he's more than welcome (so far, I can only say for him - stupid git, a dodgy way to spend time on making online lecture - maybe he's just alone, like we all are).

What a ridiculous argument. So because Smudboy has played all the games, his opinion on them is somehow less valid? It's not a "hate" video; it's a video analyzing a (poorly-told) story. That's what people do, they have opinions about things, they think about them, they usually voice their opinions in some way or another.

Do you have a problem with people who liked Mass Effect 3 and spent time creating "tribute" videos and music videos pertaining to the game. Shouldn;t they use their "skills" more effectively. Or are you only targetting people who don't share your decidedly asinine opinion about this base game?

Oh, and ceasing to care about stories because they aren't acclaimed high literature like War and Peace doesn't make any sense. If you're willing to forgive glaring errors in pieces of fiction because you don't hold them to Tolstoy's standard, then apparently you'll just be satisfied with wahtever trash companies like Bioware churn out instead of actually analyzing and demanding good story telling.

Edit: Also the position that his opinion is less valid because he hasn't made a multi-million dollar game costing thousands of hours of work with a team likely over 100 people is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 20 novembre 2012 - 12:45 .

[Nimrodell]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

trolls trying to justify anything @ face value from the ending depart from this thread.


By watching this video I'm more and more convinced on the twilight god's deception theory.
http://social.biowar...ndex/13419372/1

And more and more convinced that bioware if goes for a sequel WILL CANON the destroy ending.

Twilight God's entire theory rides on the Catalyst being a lair and misdirecting you, which he assumes from the start.  The problem is that Leviathan proved the Catalyst isn't lying.  Twilight God attempted after Leviathan to retroactively say the Leviathan's weren't honest either, to help support his original theory, which would fall apart if the DLC's implications were right (which they were).

He's also as nit-picky as Smudboy.  He takes tiny graphical details like the color of Shepard's eyes and says that proves him correct on things.

He's as bad as Smudboy.

And most of Smudboy's problems arise from the fact he wanted the game to tell him every little detail.  He did the same thing back in Mass Effect 2.  He's a rather staunch (if unknowing) advocate of the removal of player agency.

RiouHotaru, I had much appreciation for your threads and the work you've done before ME3 and again, I'm finding myself in supporting your reply (tbh I wouldn't even bother if you didn't post on this thread). Smudboy is forgetting one tiny bit in his reviews and he should be ashamed 'cause of it - if he was just a simple gamer that hated Mass Effect trilogy, he would not bother to buy all three games and then go through all this trouble of making videos trying to ask questions and point what's wrong according to him. I have one simple answer, btw, Mass Effect is a game, not a bloody Tolstoy story where the narrator is exploring the fate of morally fallen woman in 19th century. This is not high literature, it's bloody game, and a good one, for that matters. Ok, so many didn't like the ending, but also so many forgot the beauty of three games before that ending... and I tell ya, BSN, you're so full of...  AUTOCENSORED. Smudboy should really do something truly useful with his skills (not being sarcastic or rude, I mean it) - he should focus his energy on creating something unique that would actually help in education - but until he does that, he's just one sorry nitpicking arse, a person that has skill and a bit of a knowledge that's using those in wrong directions. Btw, if he's so smart and omnipotent, why didn't he create a nice RPG Sci-Fi trilogy? And he claims he finds ME trilogy absurd and silly, and then spends so much time on videos that are actually covering the whole trilogy... What an awesome liar and pompous arse.

People, never forget, Mass Effect is a video game, designed for fun and time-sinks and it accomplished so much more than other video games - people actually learned terms from theory of literature and had fun along the way. The only hubris is... Mac Walters and Casey Hudson thought they can put gaming on higher level and discovered, unfortunately, too late, that people actually lie in forum posts and feedback. Majority on forums, even anonimous, is actually full of BS and lying (even when anonimous we crave for more attention and 'being popular', set standards... and lets face it, most prom queens won't even see these posts, so kinda, all lying (and I had read all those posts before ME3 was released, so I know what I'm talking about)).
Smudboy is educated person but also one that is frustrated - and as I said, he should put his energy in something more useful - might actually do some good. Otherwise, he's just one pompous arse that forgot that Mass Effect is actually a video game, a limited artistic form since it has its boundaries in what was known from Andy Warhal's times - a consumer's or popular art.

I'm just amazed with a fact that he again spent his time creating this 'hate' video... wonderful, wasted talent and time and the person that keeps lying to himself that his objective is to be an impartial critic. I'll take him seriously, when he actually recognizes the genre and the fact that he's playing a fookin' game... And if he wants to discuss serious literature and the interpretation or problems in it, he's more than welcome (so far, I can only say for him - stupid git, a dodgy way to spend time on making online lecture - maybe he's just alone, like we all are).

What a ridiculous argument. So because Smudboy has played all the games, his opinion on them is somehow less valid? It's not a "hate" video; it's a video analyzing a (poorly-told) story. That's what people do, they have opinions about things, they think about them, they usually voice their opinions in some way or another.

Do you have a problem with people who liked Mass Effect 3 and spent time creating "tribute" videos and music videos pertaining to the game. Shouldn;t they use their "skills" more effectively. Or are you only targetting people who don't share your decidedly asinine opinion about this base game?

Oh, and ceasing to care about stories because they aren't acclaimed high literature like War and Peace doesn't make any sense. If you're willing to forgive glaring errors in pieces of fiction because you don't hold them to Tolstoy's standard, then apparently you'll just be satisfied with wahtever trash companies like Bioware churn out instead of actually analyzing and demanding good story telling.

Edit: Also the position that his opinion is less valid because he hasn't made a multi-million dollar game costing thousands of hours of work with a team likely over 100 people is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

So, you also forgot that Mass Effect is not actually a true art and literature, since you're foaming on my post like a rabid forum poster? Why Tolstoy grabbing from my post if you're not so literal? Why not mentioning Beljajev or Lem or Strugotskoy? Sorry, dear forum poster, but Smudboy's analysis is exactly how you described it... it's up to you if you're going to do better actually. And remember, I'm not defending BioWare here, just mentioning the fact that 'cause of Mass Effect trilogy, people forgot in what genre they are... just like you... Let's recall science fiction definition (click on these links and actually read them, please), if you bought adept Shepard (biotics), everyone's understanding each other even though alien (and shame on you for actually not dealing with poetics on story of space travel and story of travel in time:)), or inter-species romances, then you really don't know the difference between a consumer's art and art per se (and art per se won't give you enough money to live and survive... usually, you have to be a dead git and your progentors would feast on your work, 'cause no one understood actually what you're doing, no matter if it's just latest fashion from future majority or actual worth and contribute to human kind).

So, sorry, no, I'm not a BW drone (why would I be, they are in EA since 2009, making my life miserable while trying to actually pay them for their effort and play their game - and trust me, it's really hard to live in my country and play BW games (meaning buying them and their DLCs)... and yet again, I'm still aware that Mass Effect is a trilogy, but GAME TRILOGY - 'cause that's what I bought, and you should see the same - A GAME TRILOGY - and as such it shows more, but by showing more, it shows less... Or do you want me to teach you about Phenomenology and Roman Ingarden's , oops, second link that explains more, cause, I can do that too, you know... always happy to help. lease, just don't generalize when you replying someone on these boards - 'cause I didn't write that post to praise BioWare and its story-tellers.

Modifié par Nimrodell, 20 novembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Kushan101 wrote...

Good video. He does get excessively nitpicky at times but his analysis of the Catalysts "argument" was pretty much spot on.

Yes, I agree. He is a bit nitpicking and seems a bit pretentious at times. But it was a good set of videos nonetheless.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Nimrodell wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

trolls trying to justify anything @ face value from the ending depart from this thread.


By watching this video I'm more and more convinced on the twilight god's deception theory.
http://social.biowar...ndex/13419372/1

And more and more convinced that bioware if goes for a sequel WILL CANON the destroy ending.

Twilight God's entire theory rides on the Catalyst being a lair and misdirecting you, which he assumes from the start.  The problem is that Leviathan proved the Catalyst isn't lying.  Twilight God attempted after Leviathan to retroactively say the Leviathan's weren't honest either, to help support his original theory, which would fall apart if the DLC's implications were right (which they were).

He's also as nit-picky as Smudboy.  He takes tiny graphical details like the color of Shepard's eyes and says that proves him correct on things.

He's as bad as Smudboy.

And most of Smudboy's problems arise from the fact he wanted the game to tell him every little detail.  He did the same thing back in Mass Effect 2.  He's a rather staunch (if unknowing) advocate of the removal of player agency.

RiouHotaru, I had much appreciation for your threads and the work you've done before ME3 and again, I'm finding myself in supporting your reply (tbh I wouldn't even bother if you didn't post on this thread). Smudboy is forgetting one tiny bit in his reviews and he should be ashamed 'cause of it - if he was just a simple gamer that hated Mass Effect trilogy, he would not bother to buy all three games and then go through all this trouble of making videos trying to ask questions and point what's wrong according to him. I have one simple answer, btw, Mass Effect is a game, not a bloody Tolstoy story where the narrator is exploring the fate of morally fallen woman in 19th century. This is not high literature, it's bloody game, and a good one, for that matters. Ok, so many didn't like the ending, but also so many forgot the beauty of three games before that ending... and I tell ya, BSN, you're so full of...  AUTOCENSORED. Smudboy should really do something truly useful with his skills (not being sarcastic or rude, I mean it) - he should focus his energy on creating something unique that would actually help in education - but until he does that, he's just one sorry nitpicking arse, a person that has skill and a bit of a knowledge that's using those in wrong directions. Btw, if he's so smart and omnipotent, why didn't he create a nice RPG Sci-Fi trilogy? And he claims he finds ME trilogy absurd and silly, and then spends so much time on videos that are actually covering the whole trilogy... What an awesome liar and pompous arse.

People, never forget, Mass Effect is a video game, designed for fun and time-sinks and it accomplished so much more than other video games - people actually learned terms from theory of literature and had fun along the way. The only hubris is... Mac Walters and Casey Hudson thought they can put gaming on higher level and discovered, unfortunately, too late, that people actually lie in forum posts and feedback. Majority on forums, even anonimous, is actually full of BS and lying (even when anonimous we crave for more attention and 'being popular', set standards... and lets face it, most prom queens won't even see these posts, so kinda, all lying (and I had read all those posts before ME3 was released, so I know what I'm talking about)).
Smudboy is educated person but also one that is frustrated - and as I said, he should put his energy in something more useful - might actually do some good. Otherwise, he's just one pompous arse that forgot that Mass Effect is actually a video game, a limited artistic form since it has its boundaries in what was known from Andy Warhal's times - a consumer's or popular art.

I'm just amazed with a fact that he again spent his time creating this 'hate' video... wonderful, wasted talent and time and the person that keeps lying to himself that his objective is to be an impartial critic. I'll take him seriously, when he actually recognizes the genre and the fact that he's playing a fookin' game... And if he wants to discuss serious literature and the interpretation or problems in it, he's more than welcome (so far, I can only say for him - stupid git, a dodgy way to spend time on making online lecture - maybe he's just alone, like we all are).

What a ridiculous argument. So because Smudboy has played all the games, his opinion on them is somehow less valid? It's not a "hate" video; it's a video analyzing a (poorly-told) story. That's what people do, they have opinions about things, they think about them, they usually voice their opinions in some way or another.

Do you have a problem with people who liked Mass Effect 3 and spent time creating "tribute" videos and music videos pertaining to the game. Shouldn;t they use their "skills" more effectively. Or are you only targetting people who don't share your decidedly asinine opinion about this base game?

Oh, and ceasing to care about stories because they aren't acclaimed high literature like War and Peace doesn't make any sense. If you're willing to forgive glaring errors in pieces of fiction because you don't hold them to Tolstoy's standard, then apparently you'll just be satisfied with wahtever trash companies like Bioware churn out instead of actually analyzing and demanding good story telling.

Edit: Also the position that his opinion is less valid because he hasn't made a multi-million dollar game costing thousands of hours of work with a team likely over 100 people is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

So, you also forgot that Mass Effect is not actually a true art and literature, since you're foaming on my post like a rabid forum poster? Why Tolstoy grabbing from my post if you're not so literal? Why not mentioning Beljajev or Lem or Strugotskoy? Sorry, dear forum poster, but Smudboy's analysis is exactly how you described it... it's up to you if you're going to do better actually. And remember, I'm not defending BioWare here, just mentioning the fact that 'cause of Mass Effect trilogy, people forgot in what genre they are... just like you... Let's recall science fiction definition (click on these links and actually read them, please), if you bought adept Shepard (biotics), everyone's understanding each other even though alien (and shame on you for actually not dealing with poetics on story of space travel and story of travel in time:)), or inter-species romances, then you really don't know the difference between a consumer's art and art per se (and art per se won't give you enough money to live and survive... usually, you have to be a dead git and your progentors would feast on your work, 'cause no one understood actually what you're doing, no matter if it's just latest fashion from future majority or actual worth and contribute to human kind).

So, sorry, no, I'm not a BW drone (why would I be, they are in EA since 2009, making my life miserable while trying to actually pay them for their effort and play their game - and trust me, it's really hard to live in my country and play BW games (meaning buying them and their DLCs)... and yet again, I'm still aware that Mass Effect is a trilogy, but GAME TRILOGY - 'cause that's what I bought, and you should see the same - A GAME TRILOGY - and as such it shows more, but by showing more, it shows less... Or do you want me to teach you about Phenomenology and Roman Ingarden's , oops, second link that explains more, cause, I can do that too, you know... always happy to help. lease, just don't generalize when you replying someone on these boards - 'cause I didn't write that post to praise BioWare and its story-tellers.

First off, genre isn't a shield you can raise to defend a story. Stories are told well, or they're told badly, and there are examples of each within each genre. One doesn't even need to understand what a genre is to tell Mass Effect 3 is a terrible story, just because it contains so many broken scenes, contrivances, retcons, inconsistent tone, etc, etc.

Secondly, I don't care about your arbitrary definitions as to what "art per se" and "consumer art" is, because it doesn't matter. Again, whether a piece of fiction makes money or not is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether or not the story is told well. Twilight is a poorly told story, Harry Potter is a well told story. They've both made bundles of cash, the difference being the former is terrible and the latter is good.

Thirdly, please don't construct straw men. I called out your asinine opinion, and calmy explained how you were wrong. I didn't prate philosophers or patronize you (which you seem quite adept at). How am I "foaming on" your post? And even if I was, how does that influence whether or not you're right?

Then we have this gem: "...and yet again, I'm still aware that Mass Effect is a trilogy, but GAME
TRILOGY - 'cause that's what I bought, and you should see the same - A
GAME TRILOGY - and as such it shows more, but by showing more, it shows
less... Or do you want me to teach you about Phenomenology and Roman Ingarden's , oops, second link that explains more, cause, I can do that too, you know... always happy to help."

-I actually have no clue what you're trying to get at? So because it's a game you shouldn't expect it to be consistent and well told? Or it's useless to analyze and criticize the story because ultimately whether or not you like it is subjective? And then some philosopher helps explain your point for you or... what is this? You know what? Sure, teach me about phenomenology and Ingarden, and whatever else you want. Maybe then I could make heads or tails of what it is you're even getting at.

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 20 novembre 2012 - 01:57 .

[dreamgazer]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

18 pages and counting...

Smuddy sure knows how to cause a stir.

So does the film critic Armond White.

[Oni Changas]

Stir or no, still great discussion.