381 réponses à ce sujet

[N7 Banshee Bait]

KLGChaos wrote...

Another point to bring is up the Crucible's role in the whole story. In ME3, you find the plans for the Catalyst and instead of Shep doing things to help build it, all he does is go around collecting an army... which doesn't even factor into the end game itself. What's the point of actually building an army unless you're going to beat the Reaper's in a conventional way through strength of arms? There is none.... Shepard's entire journey throughout ME3 is basically just to serve as a distraction while Hackett and his scientists do all the real work on building the thing. There was literally no real point in uniting the galaxy because you could have done fine without them-- you just would have lost Earth as well.

Shepard didn't know what the catalyst was or if they would ever find it. They didn't find out what the hell it was until the very end. So massing a huge army & fighting the Reapers conventionally was plan B.  

DUH!!!!!!


And no! They didn't find plans for the catalyst, they found plans for this big thing & they didnt even know what it was or what it was supposed to do. So they built it hoping it could destroy the Reapers but if it couldn't they needed a big ass army. So there is a point to uniting the glalaxy & building a massive fleet to fight the Reapers. Also needed a massive fleet to protect the Crucible.

Modifié par N7 Shadow SR2, 12 mars 2013 - 05:16 .

[KLGChaos]

N7 Shadow SR2 wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Another point to bring is up the Crucible's role in the whole story. In ME3, you find the plans for the Catalyst and instead of Shep doing things to help build it, all he does is go around collecting an army... which doesn't even factor into the end game itself. What's the point of actually building an army unless you're going to beat the Reaper's in a conventional way through strength of arms? There is none.... Shepard's entire journey throughout ME3 is basically just to serve as a distraction while Hackett and his scientists do all the real work on building the thing. There was literally no real point in uniting the galaxy because you could have done fine without them-- you just would have lost Earth as well.

Shepard didn't know what the catalyst was or if they would ever find it. They didn't find out what the hell it was until the very end. So massing a huge army & fighting the Reapers conventionally was plan B.  

DUH!!!!!!

Good job with the flame. I always appreciate it when people with the maturity level of a 12 year old hide behind their computer screens and look down on others.

When it comes to the end, though, everything Shepard did was pointless. Whether or not it was Plan B, it fails from a narrative aspect in the way it doesn't tie in with the endings. It may be realistic that something like that might happen, but this is a game, a fictional story. And it just smacks of bad writing.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 12 mars 2013 - 05:16 .

[N7 Banshee Bait]

KLGChaos wrote...

N7 Shadow SR2 wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Another point to bring is up the Crucible's role in the whole story. In ME3, you find the plans for the Catalyst and instead of Shep doing things to help build it, all he does is go around collecting an army... which doesn't even factor into the end game itself. What's the point of actually building an army unless you're going to beat the Reaper's in a conventional way through strength of arms? There is none.... Shepard's entire journey throughout ME3 is basically just to serve as a distraction while Hackett and his scientists do all the real work on building the thing. There was literally no real point in uniting the galaxy because you could have done fine without them-- you just would have lost Earth as well.

Shepard didn't know what the catalyst was or if they would ever find it. They didn't find out what the hell it was until the very end. So massing a huge army & fighting the Reapers conventionally was plan B.  

DUH!!!!!!

Good job with the flame. I always appreciate it when people with the maturity level of a 12 year old hide behind their computer screens and look down on others.

When it comes to the end, though, everything Shepard did was pointless. Whether or not it was Plan B, it fails from a narrative aspect in the way it doesn't tie in with the endings. It may be realistic that something like that might happen, but this is a game, a fictional story. And it just smacks of bad writing.

If people want to attackBioware or the endings that's fine. But they at least need to know WTF they're talking about before they post.

I think it was awesome writing, especially the control ending. You know what bad writing is?  The way Return Of The Jedi totally copied the ending of A New Hope.  THAT'S bad writing!  Oh, lets just repeat that same thing we did in the first movie because we can't think of anything else. And throw in a bunch of midgets in teddy bear suits. THAT'S bad writing, but everybody loved it.

Modifié par N7 Shadow SR2, 12 mars 2013 - 05:20 .

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

Actually, Bioware's revision of history is that ending haters are "confused" and simply "don't get" the endings.  Thus the EC:  to explain things slower, and using smaller words.  It's a gift to explain how we're wrong and the endings really are awesome.  We simply dont have the mental capacity to decide on our own that the endings are simply terrible on their own merits, for reasons explained in excruciating detail over the last year.

Indeed

[archangel1996]

geceka wrote...

I don't think that Bioware ever intended to insult the people who were complaining about the ending.

What I do think is that the original pre-EC endings suggested a literal reading that Bioware did not intend, e.g. while they wanted to play with the whole "a new beginning" topic by showing the Normandy stranded and the relays destroyed, they always assumed it would be clear that both can and will be fixed rather quickly.

However, without their "inside knowledge" of how the story should unfold, most people (me included – and I like the general idea behind the endings and thus are happy to have things cleared up for me in the EC) read it more like "With the Normandy stranded, all crewmembers are doomed to a life in the wilderness, Tali and Garrus will starve painfully, and Liara can spend the last 800 years of her life alone in the wrecked Normandy with everyone else dead, pining about Shepard. In the meantime, the entire allied fleet is stranded in the Sol system, and it will take thousands of years to restore the galaxy to the point it was at before the Reaper invasion".

This was a misunderstanding, apparently: Bioware didn't intend it to be perceived that way, but without their inside knowledge, it was the most obvious reading. They were too close to their own story and failed to see how easy it was to interpret it in an entirely different direction.

So when Bioware says "We wanted to clear it up in the EC", they are not saying that you/we were too dumb to understand it, they are saying "Sorry, we presented our idea in a way that can easily be interpreted in a way we didn't intend. It's our fault, not yours. Here is the EC that makes those things explicit that *we* thought were already there implicitly, but we understand now that those things weren't implied properly."

With all due respect, BW can explain me crap, at the end of the day it is still crap

[Sam Anders]

Maverick827 wrote...

I have seen all of the endings. The original endings are essentially the same, only sadder.

The MEHEM thread has 150 pages. I can dig up poll after poll, discussion after discussion, with thousands of replies all referencing the "sadness" (or, rather, the lack of "happiness" with the ending.

The original "Refuse" poll, for instance, is entirely about obtaining a happier ending. Sure, it mentions something about "at a great cost," but all of the moral dilemmas presented are ignored and Shepard is portrayed to be an infallible badass. When BioWare implements a "Refuse" option only without the proposed happy ending, the posters proclaim that they left out the "most important ****ing part" (read: the happy part).

I'm sure there are a lot of you who have legitimate gripes about the game's ending (and I look forward to reading those). I just refuse to believe that the unimaginable hordes who decried "lame" and "gay" with 0/10 scores are the ones upset about shifting themes and motifs.

sorry what

the refuse option isn't even an ending, like literally it doesn't even give you the "you beat the game" achievement

the reapers are still there and it just all happens again after you and literally everyone else dies, how is that any good at all?

[geceka]

archangel1996 wrote...

With all due respect, BW can explain me crap, at the end of the day it is still crap

That's besides my point here (you are entitled to your own opinion), I was arguing for a distinction between "Bioware wanted to clear things up because they think we are dumb" vs. "Bioware wanted to clear things up because they think they didn't make them clear enough in the first place". Whether you like the cleared-up plot points is beyond the scope of this.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

MacroSpamMK wrote...

The EC Ending, whilst not brilliant, isn't what I'd call a bad ending. It's just not ideal. Not something I look forward to, but it doesn't make me hate the game as a whole (hurdur some people...a lot of people).
People have a wide variety of complaints about the ending.
- It doesn't stay true to the theme of the game (wot).
- Space magic.
- Sacrifice (this is probably where your sadness point comes in).
- Lack of closure.
- Our decisions didn't really matter.
I could spend hours attempting to explain, but some people are a lost cause and for some things (like space magic), I doubt I could come up with a reasonable argument for.

- it stays true to the themes of the first and third game.  the second was an action movie, not a scifi story.  Think Star Trek TNG versus Aliens
- Its not space magic.  magic implies some supernatural element.  This is just a weapon with a function.  Biotics still have tons of plotholes and are only partially explained no matter how far into the codecs you dig.  Theres no explanation of how the biotic implant actually effects other objects other than "electrical current introduced to eezo causes".  thats half an explanation.  its as much of an explanation as "it will evolve species dna to a new form of life".  its a radiation bomb with "smart targeting".  "Effect everything with reaper code"  or "effect everything with this genetic compount"  nanomachines might be a lame explanation but its not magic.
- Shepard has to manually activate a bomb.  Plenty of action movies end like this.  (The catalyst is a BOMB.  its a highly complex bomb that doesnt just depend on a single atomic reaction to function, allowing it to compound specific functions across a global scale at higher than ftl speeds.)
- Extended cut gives us closure.  "Jack and Jacob became successful instructores.  Tuchunka rebuilt itself to its former glory.  rannoch became a wasteland after the fall of the geth and quarians"  this is closure.  it tells us how things ended up.  shepard's story is over.  we were told from the onset of the first game that this would be a trilogy that tells the complete story of shepard.  I dont understand why people would EXPECT another game with shepard.  There never was going to be a mass effect 4.  there might be a 4th game but if you were paying attention to the hype throughout the years you'd have known going in that there was going to be no game after this point in the story by the time you bought the game.  "This is it" was ALWAYS the gameplan.
- Extended cut gives us a ton of decision context.  Also, if you dont do the search and rescue minigames or the multiplayer your ability to get the best ending is dependant ENTIRELY on the decisions from the past few games.  (Taking dlc into account theres a very narrow margin between getting a medium ems ending and a high ems ending, or even low if you make certain choices.)  Yeah we didnt get loyalty mission version 2 but the choices still impact extended cut and resonate throughout the game and dlc in most dialogue.  Priority london should have had more elements that take your decisions into account.  Its ****ty that if you lost krogan support that krogan still show up to defend earth in the ending.  they should have spent extra time just making priority earth into a setpiece like tuchunka or rannoch was (global map where you pick missions that lead into a final conflict)  We should have had Rio and London.  We should have had a complicated final mission.  What they ended up with is objectively FINE, but yeah, its not GREAT. 

[Iakus]

geceka wrote...

I don't think that Bioware ever intended to insult the people who were complaining about the ending.

What I do think is that the original pre-EC endings suggested a literal reading that Bioware did not intend, e.g. while they wanted to play with the whole "a new beginning" topic by showing the Normandy stranded and the relays destroyed, they always assumed it would be clear that both can and will be fixed rather quickly.

However, without their "inside knowledge" of how the story should unfold, most people (me included – and I like the general idea behind the endings and thus are happy to have things cleared up for me in the EC) read it more like "With the Normandy stranded, all crewmembers are doomed to a life in the wilderness, Tali and Garrus will starve painfully, and Liara can spend the last 800 years of her life alone in the wrecked Normandy with everyone else dead, pining about Shepard. In the meantime, the entire allied fleet is stranded in the Sol system, and it will take thousands of years to restore the galaxy to the point it was at before the Reaper invasion".

This was a misunderstanding, apparently: Bioware didn't intend it to be perceived that way, but without their inside knowledge, it was the most obvious reading. They were too close to their own story and failed to see how easy it was to interpret it in an entirely different direction.

So when Bioware says "We wanted to clear it up in the EC", they are not saying that you/we were too dumb to understand it, they are saying "Sorry, we presented our idea in a way that can easily be interpreted in a way we didn't intend. It's our fault, not yours. Here is the EC that makes those things explicit that *we* thought were already there implicitly, but we understand now that those things weren't implied properly."

Sure, they may not have intended to be insulting, but it's completely possible to be condescending without intending to be.

Sure EC provides some cosmetic changes, showing the relays don't get blown up except in the Low EMS Destroy endings, the Normandy being repairable, etc.  But none of it goes towards the moral repulsiveness each ending contains.  Well, except having the option to refuse, which is nothing more than a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" ending.  The weaknesses of each ending are still there, untouched by EC.  Shepard must still commit suicide performing an atrocity on the galaxy in order to "win"

And to this very day, Bioware claims we are still just "confused".

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Sam Anders wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I have seen all of the endings. The original endings are essentially the same, only sadder.

The MEHEM thread has 150 pages. I can dig up poll after poll, discussion after discussion, with thousands of replies all referencing the "sadness" (or, rather, the lack of "happiness" with the ending.

The original "Refuse" poll, for instance, is entirely about obtaining a happier ending. Sure, it mentions something about "at a great cost," but all of the moral dilemmas presented are ignored and Shepard is portrayed to be an infallible badass. When BioWare implements a "Refuse" option only without the proposed happy ending, the posters proclaim that they left out the "most important ****ing part" (read: the happy part).

I'm sure there are a lot of you who have legitimate gripes about the game's ending (and I look forward to reading those). I just refuse to believe that the unimaginable hordes who decried "lame" and "gay" with 0/10 scores are the ones upset about shifting themes and motifs.

sorry what

the refuse option isn't even an ending, like literally it doesn't even give you the "you beat the game" achievement

the reapers are still there and it just all happens again after you and literally everyone else dies, how is that any good at all?

The problem is that the nature of the enemy goes against what the simple minded gamer percieves as "a good game".  The reapers are a greater form of existence above us and we are fleas unto it.  being able to just blow them all up would have made the buildup from that first game entirely meaningless.  The point of ME1 was that the alliance fleet and citadel fleets werent able to lay a scratch on sovereign.  They were firing on a stationary reaper FOR A GOOD LONG WHILE and they couldn't slow it down or even "put a dent in that thing".  Shepard had to FRY soverign's mind using its own hubris against it to lower its IMPENITRIBLE defenses.  every single reaper was exactly as tough as soverign was. 

The protheans fought with a GREATER military than ours for 500 years and couldnt kill a SINGLE reaper, not even a destroyer.  The american dream teaches us that you can do anything if you believe you can and never let anyone tell you you can't.  This has poisoned the well of alot of media recently and the general minds and expectations of the masses.  When EVERY military leader fighting in the war kept telling shepard that they "have no idea how to stop these things" and "all we can do is delay them and hold out hope for the crucible" the average player was internally going "**** you i'm commander shepard every single thing i try to do i succeed at because its a videogame.  You can always win a videogame"  THATS what happened and thats what a large group of players didnt understand about this story even after leviathan and extended cut.  they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

[KLGChaos]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 12 mars 2013 - 05:53 .

[geceka]

KLGChaos wrote...

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

Yes, but has any Mass Effect ever been a game you either "win" or "lose"? Most modern games already defy these categories somewhat. This not Pacman anymore. 

[moater boat]

It's obvious that the OP doesn't actually want answers or an explanation of what people dislike about the ending. Anyone can tell that the entire point of this post is to allow him to feel superior to others. It's really quite simple. He feels that if he can handle something that others can't then he is superior in some way. In this case he has decided that the problem was the fact that the endings were "sad", so by being able to accept a "sad" ending that other people were supposedly upset about he is trying to convince himself that he is more tough and stronger-willed than others.

But here's the rub, people that actually ARE tough, strong-willed, and able to deal with sadness don't need to convince themselves, and they CERTAINLY don't need to pick fights with other people to try to prove that they are. The only logical conclusion is that the OP is, in fact, a very sad person in real life, and in order to combat this he puts on this air of bravado that allows him to ignore glaring inconsistencies in logic and storytelling, and reduce everything to a one dimension scale of "happy" or "sad". Then, by placing things on the sad end of the spectrum and proclaiming loudly how he is not saddened, he is able to lie to himself quite thoroughly. Unfortunately for him, he may be fooling himself, but he isn't fooling everyone. I, for one, see right through it. And the fact that someone deludes themselves in such a way is more sad than any video game could ever be.

[jumpingkaede]

Maverick827 wrote...

I was convinced the ending was a deus ex machina.  Some galactic, omniscient space god teleports to Earth at the last second and saves the day.  Or maybe a hyper-advanced species from another galaxy swoops in at the last second.  Surely it had to be something that insulting to evoke such an outburst that still exists to this day.

Isn't that... exactly what happened?

Except replace "teleports to Earth" with "was in the Citadel this entire time".

Also the "hyper-advanced species" are, in fact, the Leviathans; another previously unknown and unheard of species which is only introduced VIA DLC.  They don't save the day, but they pretty much swoop in (or dive in) at the last second and make the ending possible.

So the ending really was as insulting as you expected.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 12 mars 2013 - 06:01 .

[KLGChaos]

geceka wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

Yes, but has any Mass Effect ever been a game you either "win" or "lose"? Most modern games already defy these categories somewhat. This not Pacman anymore. 

Actually, yes... ME2. I did the Suicide Mission without losing a single person.

And honestly, I wish we could go back to those old days at times. I'd rather have two options with black and white than just one option of grey.

[Funkdrspot]

At first it was pretty bad, but the EC fixed most issues.

Everyone said they wanted clarification but when Bioware didn't give them a happy ending, a certain segment of BSN, wasnt able to cope with losing their shepard so they kept up the hate in the hopes that Bioware would break down and give them that option.

This is what happens when people are not emotionally stable and they experience a loss of life. Many of them are going through stages of grief.

[AlanC9]

archangel1996 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...
Personally I've seen these complaints:

(snip)

Do you believe this?

pBelieve that all these complaints exist, or that they're mostly invalid or overstated?

And you? Do you believe i was askingyou?

No. I just wasn't quite sure what you were asking him. So I asked.

For the record, though, and as posted earlier, I think GiarcYekrub missed at least two categories, but I'm OK with his evaluation of the ones he did list

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

KLGChaos wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

[jumpingkaede]

KLGChaos wrote...

geceka wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

Yes, but has any Mass Effect ever been a game you either "win" or "lose"? Most modern games already defy these categories somewhat. This not Pacman anymore. 

Actually, yes... ME2. I did the Suicide Mission without losing a single person.

And honestly, I wish we could go back to those old days at times. I'd rather have two options with black and white than just one option of grey.

This exactly.

Yes, modern games and modern movies both feel like having an actual ending is "cliche".

How many movies in the past 10 years have ended with a sudden cliffhanger after the credits (or sometimes before the credits) leaving the entire ending in doubt?

I hate the trend, personally.  When I read a book, or watch a game, or watch a movie, I want a conclusion.  Not being able to conclude your work isn't hip, or revolutionary, or edgy.  It just tells me you didn't know how to write a conclusion.  Or that you're setting me up for a money-grabbing sequel.

[Cainhurst Crow]

This thread had all the hate spiels, insecure projecting, bandwaggoning and No U's I came to expect from a thread like this.

Par the course everbody, par the course. You can lock this anytime now stan, this thread's not going anywhere profound anytime soon.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 12 mars 2013 - 06:07 .

[AlanC9]

KLGChaos wrote...


Actually, yes... ME2. I did the Suicide Mission without losing a single person.

I thought that was a problem with the SM, myself

And honestly, I wish we could go back to those old days at times. I'd rather have two options with black and white than just one option of grey.

Don't you mean three options of grey and one black?

[jumpingkaede]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

Why in the world would you play a game that wasn't fun?  Note that fun does not necessarily happy.  Fun can be challenging a la Dark/Demon's Souls.  But fun is fun.  If I'm not enjoying the game... well, I have better things to do with my time and with my money to play a videogame that I'm not having fun with.  

To act otherwise strikes me as slightly masochistic, though to each their own.

I have no problem with the "idea" of an enemy that is impossible to take down.  It just makes for a stupid game idea... not to mention kind of a stupid story.  Jack and the Beanstalk... with Jack being smushed in the end.  David and Goliath... only Goliath wins.  Remember the Titans... but the Titans end up being disbanded and Coach Herm is fired. Star Wars... with Luke falling off of Bespin to his death.

I'm sure the symbolism is amazing and really, who doesn't like a nice life-affirming tale of how cruel and unfair things are and how the underdog usually loses.  I know when I sit down after a long week's work to play a videogame or read a book that's what I'm looking for. 

(At least Braid, which does not have a traditional win/lose ending, makes up for it because the entire game is designed around solving the puzzles to reveal the story.  Therefore, the ending lines up with the gamer's expectations. )

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 12 mars 2013 - 06:14 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

The main thing people miss is that ME1 doesnt end with shepard leaving to unite the galaxy. he leaves the council to prepare for a war. shepard's mission was to find a way to stop them. Find a WAY to stop them. which meant looking for something that would allow victory to be possible. The council was supposed to worry about military preperation.


then Mass Effect 2 stepped in with a rushed narrative that "reset" the stakes so that they could "target new players" and a story that would have made a better side game than a second act to a 3 part story. :/

it was basically "What if we had mass effect 1 but the GETH was the core threat in the end, not sovereign or saren" it was dialed down. Yeah shepard was able to triumph over some prothean husks because they were "on his level" it was a step down in threat from the last game. Collectors were more threatening than the geth but less so than soverign. (Harbinger wasnt an active threat to the game, merely a waiting one) theres reasons why people have problems with mass effect 2. (aka: people who played mass effect 1 when thats all there was)

[KLGChaos]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

That's the whole reason I play video games-- for FUN. If I just want to feel, I'll read a book or watch a movie. But when I'm playing a game, I do so because I ahve fun with it. For example, I'm a huge fan of Dead Island. The story and characters are horrible, but I have a lot of fun with the game play, which keeps me coming back.

I'm not saying game should be before story. But it should be JUST AS IMPORTANT as the story is. Otherwise, you're just better off going with a different medium. If playing a game is tedious, then it detracts from everything else. The only thing I felt with ME3's endings was digust because there weren't options for all types of players like they promised.

And a narrative can be fun AND still make you feel. The first Star Wars for instance or the Avengers movie... both were extremely fun movies that made you feel triumphant. A story doesn't have to be depressing to be good, which seems to be the common thought among the emo generation these days.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

Why in the world would you play a game that wasn't fun?  Note that fun does not necessarily happy.  Fun can be challenging a la Dark/Demon's Souls.  But fun is fun.  If I'm not enjoying the game... well, I have better things to do with my time and with my money to play a videogame that I'm not having fun with.  

To act otherwise strikes me as slightly masochistic, though to each their own.

i dont know maybe to grow as a human being?  To enjoy something more complex than child's entertainment?  You obviously dont care about story or narrative.  Videogames are more than just "game"  theres the "video" part.  games can tell stories and should be telling stories.  Mass Effect 2 suckered in alot of "hardcore gamers" who didnt realise the point of the series was telling a deep scifi story.  bioware was always at its best when they put story above all else. 

your kind is the problem with gaming and why we get garbage like god of war 4 and halo 4 and gears of war 4. 
games have the potential to be more than just a single thing, because they're a conglomerate of narrative elements and potential. 


the problem is we have a generation that doesnt like to read books or watch good movies  >:|