164 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

I want the writers to read this article, and then respond to it. If they didn't intend for their story to be interpreted in this way, then they should say so. If they do support this interpretation, then they should explain their reasoning.

Otherwise, they''ll continue to have former fans like drayfish who believe that their story celebrates moral depravity.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:37 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

As usual, chemiclord's left me a bit embarrassed that most of what I contribute these days is snark.

Drayfish has done the same for me

[chemiclord]

Isz Niv wrote...

Chemiclord, all I can say is wow. I don't care what people say , these forums are filled with very intelligent people who know bad writing whenever it is sugar coated.

As a "professional" writer myself (what little that term means at this point), I'll readily admit to a Realist background flavored with a hint of Modernism.  I believe literature and storytelling is our way of not just putting a mirror to the world, but challenging that world we reflect.

Romantic, escapist tales are the storytelling equivalent of empty calories.  Sweet on the tongue, good for a endorphine burst to make you feel better for a time, but at the end leave you metaphysically malnourished.  

There's no particular thought invoked by such "feel good" tales; no meaningful internal or external reflection.  Nothing that makes you ask, "Why is the world this way, and what can be done to make it better?"  You need more than reaffirmation that everything will be all right in the end.  Sometimes, you need to see and feel how it WON'T if the world continues as it is.

That said... there is a place for empty calories.  Even Mr. Grumpy Realist I doesn't mind sitting down with something mindlessly fun on occasion.  The weight of the world can be oppressive if that is all you see.  But, at the end of the day, it's the creator that needs to decide what story they wish to tell, even if it disappoints those who want thier their literary sugar or aggrivates those who want their storytelling meat and potatoes; and I believe fans should respect THAT much even if the story's execution is utter garbage.

Modifié par chemiclord, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:30 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Yeah, one thing I've noticed is that neither realists nor idealists are by and large satisfied. For every contrivance to make the ending feel more sad (the geth/EDI dying in Destroy) there is a contrivance to make it happier (the Normandy evac scene). In general, a lot of what happens feels forced, unnatural, inorganic, and somewhat illogical.

I'm not sure I'd classify the evac scene as a way to make the endings happier -- if the squadmates had been left on Earth they'd have been just fine, like Miranda et al. It's mostly a contrivance so everyone shows up at the memorial scene.

Which doesn't make things any better for realists, of course. The contrivance itself is the problem, not why the contrivance is there. ( Though that does raise the question of why realists ever liked the series.... or really, any Bio game ever)

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not sure I'd classify the evac scene as a way to make the endings happier -- if the squadmates had been left on Earth they'd have been just fine, like Miranda et al. It's mostly a contrivance so everyone shows up at the memorial scene.

Well, not exactly. The evac scene is there to explain the contrivance of your squad showing up on the Normandy despite having presumably been blasted to hell at the beam. So I suppose it isn't the evac scene per se but more your squad being okay on the Normandy after that beam scene that is the happy contrivance.

Which doesn't make things any better for realists, of course. The contrivance itself is the problem, not why the contrivance is there. ( Though that does raise the question of why realists ever liked the series.... or really, any Bio game ever)

It's an interesting question, along with "What video games DO realists like?"

Final Fantasy Tactics is about the only one that comes to mind.

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

Which doesn't make things any better for realists, of course. The contrivance itself is the problem, not why the contrivance is there. ( Though that does raise the question of why realists ever liked the series.... or really, any Bio game ever)

I'll tell you one thing I liked (and still do) about the series.

Personally, the only particularly silly and eye-rollingly positive element of the game was the Suicide Mission of ME2... and part of that was a game design issue.  For a "suicide mission", it was AWFULLY damn easy for everyone to come out alive.

Much everything else was a fairly balanced exploration.  I personally loved how the consequences of the leaders of the Council really ****ed over the galaxy.  It challenged how slow governments drag their feet, reactionary instead of proactive, and the potential consequences of what happens when our leaders become entrenched by petty differences and grudges, seeking only to placate their power bases rather than doing what needs to be done.

Shepard really gets shafted here by the Council until it's too late... and it really shows the limits of what a person can do when the leaders we count on to lead... well... don't.  There's a strong lesson there; teaching us that we need to hold our leaders accountable, rather than bury our heads and hide from growing problems.

Modifié par chemiclord, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:38 .

[CronoDragoon]

chemiclord wrote...
Personally, the only particularly silly and eye-rollingly positive element of the game was the Suicide Mission of ME2... and part of that was a game design issue.  For a "suicide mission", it was AWFULLY damn easy for everyone to come out alive.

I'd assume as a realist you'd have a lot of problems with ME1's ending as well, particularly in reference to the humans being given a seat on the Council as a reward for saving them. That seems pretty darn idealistic to me, given I can't imagine any of the Council races were putting political pressure on the Council members to do so.

[chemiclord]

CronoDragoon wrote...

It's an interesting question, along with "What video games DO realists like?"

Final Fantasy Tactics is about the only one that comes to mind.

I liked the theory behind Final Fantasy Tactics, though the execution left a little to be desired.  Not entirely a fan of characters who act evil for ****s and giggles (the church for example).

Another one I was fond of was Crono Cross, although again, some pretty bad execution kept me from enjoying it to the outright fullest.  I applauded how it showed some of the unintended consequences of the first games actions... how even the most well intentioned acts can have negative effects if not well thought through.

Most recently, I enjoyed both Portal games... and REALLY liked Spec Ops.  The latter one really twisted my brain in loops, and showed a very grim consequence to the glorification of war that our society (and perhaps the human condition) embraces.

[chemiclord]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I'd assume as a realist you'd have a lot of problems with ME1's ending as well, particularly in reference to the humans being given a seat on the Council as a reward for saving them. That seems pretty darn idealistic to me, given I can't imagine any of the Council races were putting political pressure on the Council members to do so.

Meh... I was able to rationalize that as a political power play.  If we give them a seat at the big boy table, maybe they'll stop causing trouble, and it'll make us all look like enlighted and appreciative leaders to give humanity a seat they were going to get in the next half century anyway.

As for the suicide mission itself, I wan't even particularly bothered with the idea that every COULD emerge alive.  Hey, sometimes the impossible happens.  But the entire feel of the mission was cheapened by how absurdly easy it was to accomplish.  "Just make everyone like me then follow this handy dossier complete with notes that effectively say, 'YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU DON'T CHOOSE THIS PERSON."

Modifié par chemiclord, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:48 .

[Dragoonlordz]

War is hell, war is mass genocide, war is both victory and loss plus war is sacrifice. Galactic war is all these things and more. If you expected to come out hills alive with sound of music then I am glad you were shown the error of your ways.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:45 .

[Yakko77]

The author nails it.

Not sure what to expect with ME4. I half expect it to be shown with everyone having green glowing eyes, and a squad mate Husk or Cannibal and crap but I hope Destroy "Good" Ending is given some respect albeit a bit late.

[Iakus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

War is hell, war is mass genocide, war is both victory and loss plus war is sacrifice. Galactic war is all these things and more. If you expected to come out hills alive with sound of music then I am glad you were shown the error of your ways.

This must be that "toxic environment" thing that's getting talked about nowadays.

[CronoDragoon]

chemiclord wrote...

I liked the theory behind Final Fantasy Tactics, though the execution left a little to be desired.  Not entirely a fan of characters who act evil for ****s and giggles (the church for example).

My thought on FFT was the way they parallel the paths of Delita and Ramza. On the one hand, Delita is a hardcore realist who is effective and gets exactly what he wants, but this is offset by a lack of true friends and a wife that wants him dead. On the other hand, Ramza saves the world with his friends, but they all die, and no one ever knows that it was he who saved them.

Another one I was fond of was Crono Cross, although again, some pretty bad execution kept me from enjoying it to the outright fullest.  I applauded how it showed some of the unintended consequences of the first games actions... how even the most well intentioned acts can have negative effects if not well thought through.

Chrono Cross is my favorite RPG, so you are speaking my language. Of course the reaction to Cross and ME are similar, insofar as both fanbases went ape**** when the game devs messed with the characters (of Trigger).

Most recently, I enjoyed both Portal games... and REALLY liked Spec Ops.  The latter one really twisted my brain in loops, and showed a very grim consequence to the glorification of war that our society (and perhaps the human condition) embraces.

Haven't played Spec Ops. Thanks for the recommendation.

[CronoDragoon]

chemiclord wrote...
As for the suicide mission itself, I wan't even particularly bothered with the idea that every COULD emerge alive.  Hey, sometimes the impossible happens.  But the entire feel of the mission was cheapened by how absurdly easy it was to accomplish.  "Just make everyone like me then follow this handy dossier complete with notes that effectively say, 'YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU DON'T CHOOSE THIS PERSON."

I err.....I... had two people die my first time through...

I forgot Jack wasn't loyal and used her as a bio expert, and I used Samara as the leader for the other platoon and got my tech expert killed.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

chemiclord wrote...
As for the suicide mission itself, I wan't even particularly bothered with the idea that every COULD emerge alive.  Hey, sometimes the impossible happens.  But the entire feel of the mission was cheapened by how absurdly easy it was to accomplish.  "Just make everyone like me then follow this handy dossier complete with notes that effectively say, 'YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU DON'T CHOOSE THIS PERSON."

I err.....I... had two people die my first time through...

I forgot Jack wasn't loyal and used her as a bio expert, and I used Samara as the leader for the other platoon and got my tech expert killed.

Not to mention that ever since ME2 came out, people have been surgically taking out specific squadmates specifically to see what kind of effects it would have on ME3.  To find out how much the story changes

Sadly, the answer to that, barring a couple of exceptions is "not much"

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

Not to mention that ever since ME2 came out, people have been surgically taking out specific squadmates specifically to see what kind of effects it would have on ME3.  To find out how much the story changes

Sadly, the answer to that, barring a couple of exceptions is "not much"

Eh, ask yourself how much the story in ME2 changes based on the choices you make in ME1.

I think you'll find the same answer.

It's a limitation of CRPGs and the fact they cannot emulate a tabletop DM no matter how much illusionary choice you slap onto it.

[Dragoonlordz]

iakus wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

War is hell, war is mass genocide, war is both victory and loss plus war is sacrifice. Galactic war is all these things and more. If you expected to come out hills alive with sound of music then I am glad you were shown the error of your ways.

This must be that "toxic environment" thing that's getting talked about nowadays.

I do find it interesting this must be the fourth time I have seen you call someone and/or something someone said as toxic of which all of them being different people, yet clearly you do not see yourself as one of those who is promoting the toxic nature you claim of others even though your quite adept at being toxic towards opinions that do not match your own it would seem.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:17 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Not to mention that ever since ME2 came out, people have been surgically taking out specific squadmates specifically to see what kind of effects it would have on ME3.  To find out how much the story changes

Sadly, the answer to that, barring a couple of exceptions is "not much"

Man, prerelease comments must have had you frothing at the mouth with expectations. I skipped all ME3 info and was not even planning to SEE most of my ME2 squad. I think ME3 incorporated your previous choices pretty well. Rachni could have been done better, but as someone who played ME2 first I never thought the Rachni were important. Sorry.

[Faust1979]

You can have all the morals and beliefs you want but just as in real life sometimes you have to make decisions that betray your beliefs

[Renmiri1]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I want the writers to read this article, and then respond to it. If they didn't intend for their story to be interpreted in this way, then they should say so. If they do support this interpretation, then they should explain their reasoning.

Otherwise, they''ll continue to have former fans like drayfish who believe that their story celebrates moral depravity.

Fat chance! If they were open to any imput, even constructive criticism they would have not have given us the middlefinger on EC.

The article is brilliant but makes me sad and angry all over again. I think I'll just pass any next reviews. ME trilogy is dead and I won't be getting anywhere near any Casey Hudson's games. Once was enough. 

[CronoDragoon]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Fat chance! If they were open to any imput, even constructive criticism they would have not have given us the middlefinger on EC.

Every single thing in the EC was because of fan feedback.

[fiendishchicken]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Not to mention that ever since ME2 came out, people have been surgically taking out specific squadmates specifically to see what kind of effects it would have on ME3.  To find out how much the story changes

Sadly, the answer to that, barring a couple of exceptions is "not much"

Man, prerelease comments must have had you frothing at the mouth with expectations. I skipped all ME3 info and was not even planning to SEE most of my ME2 squad. I think ME3 incorporated your previous choices pretty well. Rachni could have been done better, but as someone who played ME2 first I never thought the Rachni were important. Sorry.

There's the problem. You don't have the 5 years of investment in the franchise as, say, the people who have been there since the first game.

Then you missed out on a lot then. Sorry. If you looked at all the stuff that BW hyped up, then you'd have good reason to believe in why everything was going to be epic and fulfilling. Not to mention the potential of many said characters and branches of the story. ME2 had far expanded on what was in ME1. ME3 narrowed that down. By a lot.

The Rachni were supposed to be a huge factor in the game, as promised by the lead writer. Instead, all they appear no matter your decision in the first game, and they are never shown past the obligatory cameo that they recieve. It's not meaningful at all.

The decisions implemented were as ****** poor as it got.

[fiendishchicken]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Fat chance! If they were open to any imput, even constructive criticism they would have not have given us the middlefinger on EC.

Every single thing in the EC was because of fan feedback.

Then they would have changed the ending like most people wanted. 

They added refuse to satisfy the people who wanted to refuse the catalyst's logic (aka their logic) and keep in the themes and narrative established in the past 2 games. And they made it fail because people don't like their art, and they don't like that.

[CosmicGnosis]

The rachni decision really was one of the more disappointing things. I was almost expecting something horrible to happen since I chose to save them.

[CronoDragoon]

fiendishchicken wrote...
There's the problem. You don't have the 5 years of investment in the franchise as, say, the people who have been there since the first game.

Then you missed out on a lot then. Sorry. If you looked at all the stuff that BW hyped up, then you'd have good reason to believe in why everything was going to be epic and fulfilling.

That's exactly what I said and exactly my point. I skipped all ME3 marketing and therefore was able analyze the game for what is was and not what BioWare promised it would be. There's a difference.

Not to mention the potential of many said characters and branches of the story. ME2 had far expanded on what was in ME1. ME3 narrowed that down. By a lot.

You'll have to give examples, because I'm not automatically sure what you mean.

The Rachni were supposed to be a huge factor in the game, as promised by the lead writer. Instead, all they appear no matter your decision in the first game, and they are never shown past the obligatory cameo that they recieve. It's not meaningful at all.

It's not meaningful to what? To the ME3 ending? Fair enough. But the choice is still meaningful to the universe in and of itself.

The decisions implemented were as ****** poor as it got.

Ohhhh, I could think of a LOT of ways the decisions could have had worse implementation.