235 réponses à ce sujet

[Yate]

he said it would be difficult, not that it was impossible

TIM had nothing to do with the attack on Sanctuary, otherwise he wouldn't have sent (the indoctrinated) Kai Leng to retrieve the data.

indoctrination causes mental deterioration, there's no way the team could've made those discoveries while fully indoctrinated

partially, maybe, but that still doesn't mean the results are invalid

[Yate]

btw TIM wasn't indoctrinated in ME2, and he's been planning this at least since then

[Fixers0]

 The sudden ambition for control certainly remains a curious plot hole. 

[Rip504]

Be honest. A lot of the people whom originally worked on the series are elsewhere. It feels as if the love and passion is missing and the commercialism is taking over. Personal Opinion.

[Jenonax]

Yate wrote...

he said it would be difficult, not that it was impossible

TIM had nothing to do with the attack on Sanctuary, otherwise he wouldn't have sent (the indoctrinated) Kai Leng to retrieve the data.

indoctrination causes mental deterioration, there's no way the team could've made those discoveries while fully indoctrinated

partially, maybe, but that still doesn't mean the results are invalid

The results are completely invalid.

They had a lot of trouble controlling a husk they made.  They hadn't even begun to test on Reapers.  They had no way of knowing it would work.  They were indoctrinated.  They would never have gotten that far.

Its like saying that we can definitely cure this terrible disease because one rat got his temperature down in one test. No one would say those tests were successful.  It was a preliminary result and a completely unstable one.

[Yate]

doesn't matter if they could do it

they proved it could be done

[Jenonax]

Yate wrote...

doesn't matter if they could do it

they proved it could be done

Except that they didn't.

Husks are not Reapers.  They do not have the mental capacity of a Reaper.  They are two completely seperate things.

[Iakus]

Rip504 wrote...

Be honest. A lot of the people whom originally worked on the series are elsewhere. It feels as if the love and passion is missing and the commercialism is taking over. Personal Opinion.

I felt it to.

This wasn't  a respectful sendoff to a well-loved trilogy

It was more of a "Maker, please!  End this!"

[Xellith]

Whether or not you can control the reapers, the thing thats not specifically stated is whether or not the crucible can control them - and if so, how?

Im fairly sure that the scientists on Horizon didnt have a crucible to play with to see if it will control reaper troops and the like.

If someone said they can control the reapers then fine. But saying "I can control them using the crucible" is saying something completely different and requires an explanation.  Its not stated at any point, how cerberus knows the crucible can control the reapers, other than "I know the crucible can control them".

Modifié par Xellith, 28 décembre 2012 - 11:27 .

[Jenonax]

Xellith wrote...

Whether or not you can control the reapers, the thing thats not specifically stated is whether or not the crucible can control them - and if so, how?

Im fairly sure that the scientists on Horizon didnt have a crucible to play with to see if it will control reaper troops and the like.

If someone said they can control the reapers then fine. But saying "I can control them using the crucible" is saying something completely different and requires an explanation.  Its not stated at any point, how cerberus knows the crucible can control the reapers, other than "I know the crucible can control them".

Good point.  Everything about the Crucible requires further explanation.

[Sejborg]

Yate wrote...

btw TIM wasn't indoctrinated in ME2, and he's been planning this at least since then

Huh? What makes you think he wasn't indoctrinated in ME2?

[spirosz]

Jenonax wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

No I'm not. I'm stating what the game shows us. 

So am I.

^

Brovikk, keep going. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Jenonax wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The last ten minutes of the damn game! How many times do I have to repeat this!? The. Slides. Clearly. Shows. Shepard. Controlling. The. Reapers. 

I give up. This is hopeless.

Have you ever written an essay?

To come to a conclusion you provide both sides of an argument then summise what that conclusion is based on what side of the argument has the most evidence and the best quality of evidence.

I haven't seen that ruberic used since high-school, and for good reason. That evaluative style is little more than an invintation to strawman fallacies, as simply presenting both sides of an argument in no way means that anyone will spend equal amounts of effort or quality in pursuing both arguments.

The argument which states that Shepard cannot control the Reapers has hundreds of hours of gameplay and the fact that both Saren and TIM both tried and ultimately failed to do so.  We also see indoctrination of every person that has ever come into contact with the damn things. 

The argument which says he in fact can has the Villain's seal of approval and and some slides that weren't even in the original ending.  Hardly good quality evidence.

Ex post facto results outweigh any amount of prior skepticism to the contrary. The truth only needs to happen, not be plausible.

I mean, we could point out the factual errors in your claim: controlling the Reapers never had hundreds of hours of gameplay on the subject, TIM and Saren did not both try to Control the Reapers nor did they both fail to find a means (TIM did find a means, even if he was not successful in executing it), not every person who has come into contact with the Reapers has ended up indoctrinated.

Or we could just point out that the Extended Cut is canon even if it wasn't in the vanilla game, and that Control has an epilogue sequence establishing that, yes, it controls the Reapers.

[thefallen2far]

AlanC9 wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

ME1 and 2 were headed by a novelist, ME3 and its ending were written by a comic book writer. As such, the critical self editing of a novel writer is obiously absent from the final product to introduce a dumbed down version of a childish breakdown of conflict.

Sounds like you don't read any actual comic books.

Sounds like you don't read any actual novels.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The last ten minutes of the damn game! How many times do I have to repeat this!? The. Slides. Clearly. Shows. Shepard. Controlling. The. Reapers. 

I give up. This is hopeless.

Shepard is dead... he's not controlling anything.  A VI that looks and sounds like Shepard is controlling the Reapers.

[SpamBot2000]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Fans believe they know exactly what they want, and that they can communicate that effectively to the creators of the products they love. And even if they could, if you ask 100 people what they want to see in the next game, you'll get 120 responses.

But hindsight is 20/20. It's not really possible to predict just how a game is going to be received by the public until it is released. All you have to do is look at the myriad shows, films, or games to find characters that were originally intended to be one-offs, but turned out to be so popular, they were made more prominent. Who could have predicted Conrad Verner or Blasto would have such a following?

So no, "artistic integrity" was never used as a dismissal of fan criticism or a catch-all escape clause. It was a response to the overwhelming hue and cry from those who felt "betrayed" by a videogame and unreasonably abusive in the community to the devs and the companies involved. No one likes to see the work they spent years of their life on, spat on and kicked into a burning orphanage. When "I was disappointed with the product you created" turns into "you lazy, incompetent money-grubbers cheated me out of all my money and destroyed videogaming forever, and I can never trust or love again!", I think the response from Ray Muzyka was not only necessary, but very much in line with his own passions and values, since he loves both videogames and the company he created. He wanted to demonstrate that he stood behind his company and his people.

The BioWare developers I know (and I know a lot of them) don't have thin skins and aren't looking to avoid all negative crticism, but that doesn't mean they would enjoy going out of their way to be verbally abused and shouted down.

No one wants to see the work they spent years of their life on spat on etc? Well, maybe they ought not to spit on it etc. You know, like Casey Hudson did. It is highly disingenuous to claim surprise at the reaction of those who participated in this unique multi-year experiment with their personal identification and, oh yeah, by paying for the whole thing, when that reaction was hardly the number one concern of those who created the ending. It was obviously devised to put An End to the story of Mass Effect, Once And For All, for whatever reasons Mr. Hudson and Mr. Walters happened to have. Any consideration for the experience of the players was quite obviously distantly secondary to this overriding objective.

Sure, I think most of the people working on ME3 did a good job. But the thing to remember is, their work got vandalized by the project lead, not the players. What Ray Muzyka was defending wasn't his company as a whole or his passions or values. He was defending what was wrong with ME3, and seemingly making a sales pitch based on the curiosity of onlookers, by suggesting people purchase the game and play it to see if it's so bad they have been told. It's a shame that a person of Muzyka's achievements was reduced to this at the end of his career in the game industry. I feel genuinely sad about it.

As for the intensity of the protests, it just reflects the intensity of the disappointment with what BioWare hath wrought, based on an appreciation of the quality work the company used to be known for. And honestly, we all know how easy it is to dismiss "Oh, I say. I found the ending of Mass Effect 3 a tad disappointing. Still, a jolly smashing job, chaps." And looks like people would rather not have their objections dismissed. Maybe it would ease the situation to actually acknowledge the substance of what they are saying. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 29 décembre 2012 - 10:34 .

[Jenonax]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Ex post facto results outweigh any amount of prior skepticism to the contrary. The truth only needs to happen, not be plausible.

I mean, we could point out the factual errors in your claim: controlling the Reapers never had hundreds of hours of gameplay on the subject, TIM and Saren did not both try to Control the Reapers nor did they both fail to find a means (TIM did find a means, even if he was not successful in executing it), not every person who has come into contact with the Reapers has ended up indoctrinated.

Or we could just point out that the Extended Cut is canon even if it wasn't in the vanilla game, and that Control has an epilogue sequence establishing that, yes, it controls the Reapers.

Ah Dean, my friend, how have you been?

Maybe not hundreds of hours as Controlling the Reapers was rather firmly in the Cereberus subplot. which was then concluded with Sanctuary and a rather lame, failed attempt at controlling a man-made husk (not Reaper), indoctrinating everyone, and then concluding again with TIM and seeing how the man himself has gone completely nuts Reaper teching himself up and arguing, successfully that the Reapers cannot be controlled.

Maybe the issue is not that we are shown we cannot control the Reapers, but that we are never shown that we are on the same level as them.  Saren thought at first that he could be, then that we could be of use to them and was proven very wrong.  The people that tried to study the dead Reaper soon found that 'a dead God still dreams' and ended up as husks.  Arrival showed us how swiftly even a long lost artifact of their's can idoctrinate people.  Bioware has never established that there is a way to beat indoctrination.  There is no cure, there is not escaping it.  That is established lore.  Shepard will eventually be no different. 

And as for the truth only needing to happen and not be plausible?  This is not real life, Dean, this is a story.  Yes the truth happens, but yes it does need to be plausible.  You can't just do whatever the hell you feel like and not give a solid explanation for it.  Look what happens when you do.  Why is Shepard able to do this?  How can he beat an inevitable process in indoctrination?  These are the two questions I would have wanted answered before I could take Control seriously. 

Modifié par Jenonax, 29 décembre 2012 - 02:10 .

[Sejborg]

Jenonax wrote...
And as for the truth only needing to happen and not be plausible?  This is not real life, Dean, this is a story.  Yes the truth happens, but yes it does need to be plausible.  You can't just do whatever the hell you feel like and not give a solid explanation for it.  Look what happens when you do.  Why is Shepard able to do this?  How can he beat an inevitable process in indoctrination?  These are the two questions I would have wanted answered before I could take Control seriously.  

Shepard get's uploaded and becomes the intelligence.2.0. The intelligence is on a "higher level" than the Reapers. It's like a hierarchi where the mandate comes from the top. The intelligence whether it is the original or the Shepard version will be the one to give the Reapers purpose. If anything Shepard will be indoctrinating the reapers. 

[Kia Purity]

Sejborg wrote...

Yate wrote...

btw TIM wasn't indoctrinated in ME2, and he's been planning this at least since then

Huh? What makes you think he wasn't indoctrinated in ME2?

Especially since he was already exposed to THE REAPERS way before the games (hence his eyes) so it's been a slow indoc. (Does anyone even read the comics?)

[Reorte]

Jenonax wrote...

And as for the truth only needing to happen and not be plausible?  This is not real life, Dean, this is a story.  Yes the truth happens, but yes it does need to be plausible.  You can't just do whatever the hell you feel like and not give a solid explanation for it.  Look what happens when you do.  Why is Shepard able to do this?  How can he beat an inevitable process in indoctrination?  These are the two questions I would have wanted answered before I could take Control seriously. 

Of course in a story anything the writer likes can happen, plausible, possible, or otherwise but if you don't stick to the plausible and possible your story will get rightly dismissed as a load of badly-written nonsense, or, at best, the implausible-looking parts will be interpreted by the more thinking parts of its audience as only part of what's happened, if they're willing to give it a chance. Of course some impossible is accepted to get the story going in a speculative fiction setting.

The saying "truth is stranger than fiction" exists for very sound reasons, because the highly unlikely does occasionally happen in reality but is simply too far-fetched for a convincing story. Fiction is bound by tighter rules of plausibility. There's also the difference between simply very unlikely and downright far-fetched impossibility to consider. ME3 had too much of the former and at crucial times strayed into the latter.

Your points about why such and such can happen are well made and it's rather depressing when people don't pay attention to those very key points. Now I don't always need to know all the details but at the very least I need to be able to feel that something logical did happen and the author knows what it was. With ME3 I get the feeling that that very often didn't happen, or at best the thinking was very superficial.

[ZLurps]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I haven't seen that ruberic used since high-school, and for good reason. That evaluative style is little more than an invintation to strawman fallacies, as simply presenting both sides of an argument in no way means that anyone will spend equal amounts of effort or quality in pursuing both arguments.

Off-topic:

Are you sure you aren't making anything sound way more exciting than it actually is?

[LinksOcarina]

dorktainian wrote...


so.... art is sometimes good, it is sometimes bad.  It is in the eye of the beholder....much like beauty.  

As i said nobody is here just to criticise.  It's easy to criticise (very) - dont get me wrong (imo) because entitlement has now gone to the n'th degree (or the feeling of).  We gave a damn.  

some just left, some got mad, angry even.  

some like the game - fair play to them...i am happy for them.  But it's almost created a 'them and us' spilt right down the middle of BSN.  Who is right?  Who is wrong? We are each side backed into a corner defending our positions. 

We come back because actually - someone might confirm IT and 50% of us would be happier....but then the others might feel betrayed.      

i've been as bad as some of the others. i'll hold my hands up.

It really is a no win situation for some and that kinda makes me sad.

None of you are right or wrong. In fact, in the end most of the people around this conflict are either chest pounding grognards or blind plebs who despite what they say, seem to have no idea what they like, and just assume that the gaming industry needs to cater to their needs above others or their own. So in a way its everyones fault for being a passionate nerd over something inconsequential. 

And the few people who are actually civil or try to be impartial are lumped into a situation or side on this debate because of the constant misinformation miscontrued as factual evidence to a confirmation bias. That part always pisses me off the most because then everyone is just being dishonest with each other and themselves to make themselves feel better. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 29 décembre 2012 - 04:13 .

[dorktainian]

maybe the split right down the middle of BSN was a good thing.

[SpamBot2000]

LinksOcarina wrote...

None of you are right or wrong. In fact, in the end most of the people around this conflict are either chest pounding grognards or blind plebs who despite what they say, seem to have no idea what they like, and just assume that the gaming industry needs to cater to their needs above others or their own. So in a way its everyones fault for being a passionate nerd over something inconsequential. 

And the few people who are actually civil or try to be impartial are lumped into a situation or side on this debate because of the constant misinformation miscontrued as factual evidence to a confirmation bias. That part always pisses me off the most because then everyone is just being dishonest with each other and themselves to make themselves feel better. 

Hmm... it's odd to see an aspiring video game critic declare the inconsequentiality of the most advanced experiment in interactive storytelling yet. 

As for impartial people, don't recall seeing any involved in the debate.

[LinksOcarina]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

None of you are right or wrong. In fact, in the end most of the people around this conflict are either chest pounding grognards or blind plebs who despite what they say, seem to have no idea what they like, and just assume that the gaming industry needs to cater to their needs above others or their own. So in a way its everyones fault for being a passionate nerd over something inconsequential. 

And the few people who are actually civil or try to be impartial are lumped into a situation or side on this debate because of the constant misinformation miscontrued as factual evidence to a confirmation bias. That part always pisses me off the most because then everyone is just being dishonest with each other and themselves to make themselves feel better. 

Hmm... it's odd to see an aspiring video game critic declare the inconsequentiality of the most advanced experiment in interactive storytelling yet. 

As for impartial people, don't recall seeing any involved in the debate.

Ive tried, by the very nature of my own stance I need to be as impartial as possible.  I have seen others try to as well, and they fail.

This whole us vs them mentality is basically the impetus of that, and its ****ing stupid. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 29 décembre 2012 - 04:32 .