CronoDragoon wrote...
Except that the fatal flaw of the Leviathans is arrogance, so it's fitting. You really think the Leviathans would back off creating an AI because their thralls sucked at it?
The Leviathans, as written, are supposed to be the apex of organic life in our galaxy. I have no problem with the supposed arrogance, per say, but repeating the same mistake their puppets constantly committed is complete idiocy. Passing off such stupidity on mere "arrogance" (if that is the explanation) just shows how lazy and poor the writing is. It trivializes the cosmic horror of the Reapers and turns them into mistakes made from an incompetently written god species. They should have just maintained the ambiguity.
Holger1405 wrote...
Using Logic?
You mean as we Humans did, at the time when we ended all the Wars? Or stopped poisoning our environment?
The Thralls weren't humans, but it may be hard to tell since many of the prominent alien life forms in Mass Effect mirror humanity (something I thought could have been improved upon, but then again humans are the focus for ME with aliens as a backdrop for SPACE). But let's entertain your idea that the human-like thralls of the Leviathans were as dumb and doomed as we are; how does this excuse the Leviathans' actions of repeating their slaves' mistakes (my main point)? As I stated in the response above, the Leviathans are supposed to be the apex of organic life in our galaxy, and have lived long enough to know better than their slaves. Arrogance does not excuse stupidity, and stating that the Leviathans did what they did because of their ego just shows how much the writers didn't care to create an interesting and logical story.
Schneidend wrote...
Except that real academic writing doesn't include this rampant "Bioware is bad and should feel bad" theme, nor does it resort to ad hominem attacks about ruining such and such franchise. I read 15-page+ essays on exciting topics like "Faulkner's southern ladies" and "the Aphrodite in Kate Chopin's The Awakening," and I have yet to see any inclusion of phrases like Faulkner destroying his franchise or writing fan fiction when he put Quentin Compson from The Sound and the Fury into Absalom, Absalom! Real critics don't rate texts 8/10. They assert that an author is using a certain device or theme, what it means, why the author is doing so, and why other critics who have asserted to the contrary might have missed or overlooked something.
Except that real academic writing (more notably modern pieces) does include such pitfalls as faulty criticism and ad hominem attacks, which is almost always caused by the warping effect of politics (and monetary incentives). I still agree with what you said though, as it is not as“rampant” as it is in internet forums, but that’s not what I was trying to bring up (nor is this the place to discuss such a topic, despite the importance of the general decline of journalism and other writing mediums).
You stated, word for word, that “It's funny when people like you talk about "bad writing" as though it's not entirely subjective. Funny, and sad.” What I inferred from this statement was that there is no such thing as bad writing, as writing itself is an entirely subjective concept. I stated that there is nothing wrong with applying objective standards to writing, and then you agreed with me in your response with the exception of the “rampant” faulty criticisms touted by detractors of ME writing. I didn’t bring that specific subject up, nor do I wish to discuss it here. I just challenged that shortsighted statement that all writing is a subjective medium, in which objective standards have no place. If you want to challenge other’s faulty criticisms of Mass Effect’s writing, then simply ask them why they think it’s bad and then debunk their support. Using the subjectivity fallacy will only stop discussions dead in their place.
Someone With Mass wrote...
Too bad that I prefer when the story comes second in the Mass Effect games, then.
If that’s what you prefer then it’s not too bad, as that is what the Mass Effect series ended up giving you (despite the premise of the first game). The second and third games were decent shoot’em ups (mechanics wise), despite the blight of having linear areas/corridors which plague most modern shooters. And if you wanted romance then you got that as well, since the games devolved into romance simulators. To be honest, I never understood “romance” in video games, since I have never seen it adequately applied in coherence with the story and gameplay. It always ends up very offsetting, as if someone who has very little experience with romance inserted their fantasies into the game. Aside from the romance simulations themselves, the appeal it has with “fans” is even more disturbing, like the current problem in Japan were a growing number of Japanese men prefer a digital waifu (in their teens) over a real one. But this disturbing trend isn’t confined to Japan, as many individuals here at the BSN seem to be overly invested in digital characters and romances that were written by a teenage girl. Why anyone would care what Tali’s sweat tastes like (a thread created here) is a horror that could only come from the abyss…
Modifié par Consular Revan, 09 mars 2013 - 11:33 .
Retour en haut
