1470 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

I won't deny that the Reaper motive was very poorly done and unsatisfying. Because it was. But proclaiming that such a thing was inevitable is just pigheaded hindsight bias, which is sadly all too common on the BSN.

I wonder sometimes if people are distinguishing between the motive we got and any possible motive. This seems analougous to the hordes of people demanding a solution to the Reapers should have been introduced in ME 2 because they can't think of anything better then Crucible. Yes, the Crucible would have been better if it was introduced in ME 2, but what would be far better still is another solution entirely introduced in ME 3.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 12:41 .

[TheProtheans]

David7204 wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You either risk it being unsatisfying, or guarantee with certainly that it will be unsatisfying.

"The Reapers are supposed to be incomprehensible." Why? Because they say so? They're incredibly powerful, but they can still be taken out. Likewise, they can still be very ancient and mysterious and still within comprehension.

Agreed. The reapers should have been left unexplained. 

I don't think you'd been reading what I've written. I'm arguing leaving the Reapers unexplained would have been awful.

Agreed, not explaining the Reapers would have been awfully good.

[spirosz]

Seboist wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins is not Mass Effect, is it?

Definitely isn't, it's a proper RPG whose choices wipe the floor with the entire ME trilogy.

Battle of Denerim > Battle of Earth

The ME series was never a full fledged RPG or advertised as one.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

spirosz wrote...

Seboist wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins is not Mass Effect, is it?

Definitely isn't, it's a proper RPG whose choices wipe the floor with the entire ME trilogy.

Battle of Denerim > Battle of Earth

The ME series was never a full fledged RPG or advertised as one.

It certainly tries to be, sometimes to its own detriment. ME1's inventory system, which I consider the worst of any RPG ever, demonstrated what happens when you worry too much about checklisting all your RPG features. It's one reason why I throw so much praise out on Jade Empire.

[The Heretic of Time]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
]
It might be too soon to say, but I predict: BioShock Infinite, GOTY 2013. Mark my words.

This is a distinct possibility, unfortunately.

And why is that unfortunate? BioShock Infinite would deserve it. If not for the story, than for the graphics, presentation, or the amazing Elizabeth. There are so many things BioShock Infinite did right.

And the way Elizabeth was created and handled, is pretty damn revolutionary in the video-game history. Companions that you need to escort are often verry horrible and annoying. Elizabeth isn't. Her A.I. is well done, she can take care of her own and she actually helps you out. Put that together with her amazing design, amazing animations and superb voice-acting, and you have a very memoriable and wonderful video-game character that people will love and remember.

Sure, but then I'd argue that there was good reason to hate Bioware pre-EA.

And what would that "good reason" be?

Bioware made Baldur's Gate 1 and Neverwinter Nights without any input from the big bad publisher. And I'd say those were far worse than anything they made post-EA.

That is your opinion, a very unpopular one. And that's fine, you can have that opinion. But is that a good reason to HATE a company? No. it's a silly reason to hate a company.

To clarify, I do not hate BioWare for the decline fo quality in their products, I hate them for their horrible business practices. To be more precise, I hate EA for their horrible business practices. BioWare is now part of EA, and it shows.  

Just as I think there are many grounds on which to hate Bioshock Infinite or Inception.

Such as?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 mai 2013 - 12:44 .

[spirosz]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Seboist wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins is not Mass Effect, is it?

Definitely isn't, it's a proper RPG whose choices wipe the floor with the entire ME trilogy.

Battle of Denerim > Battle of Earth

The ME series was never a full fledged RPG or advertised as one.

It certainly tries to be, sometimes to its own detriment. ME1's inventory system, which I consider the worst of any RPG ever, demonstrated what happens when you worry too much about checklisting all your RPG features. It's one reason why I throw so much praise out on Jade Empire. 

That's what I'm saying though - it was more heavily focused in terms of stats and ****ty inventory system in ME1, but other than that, it was still a hybrid at heart. As Mass Effect two and three were, with two going in the opposite direction (from certain RPG aspects) and three trying to get the balance, which I found it did, in terms of gameplay, but less in terms of PC, for me at least.

Plus, I love Jade Empire.

Modifié par spirosz, 14 mai 2013 - 12:46 .

[Sejborg]

IanPolaris wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You either risk it being unsatisfying, or guarantee with certainly that it will be unsatisfying.

"The Reapers are supposed to be incomprehensible." Why? Because they say so? They're incredibly powerful, but they can still be taken out. Likewise, they can still be very ancient and mysterious and still within comprehension.

Agreed. The reapers should have been left unexplained. 

I don't think you'd been reading what I've written. I'm arguing leaving the Reapers unexplained would have been awful.

I suspect they understood your position perfectly.  From what I am reading, it would simply seem they don't agree with you.

-Polaris

No I misunderstood. I thought I agreed with him, when I was actually disagreeing. 

"You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it" was all the motivation that was needed. The vagueness and arrogance was badass. Removing the mystery was harmfull. Not as harmfull as midichlorians though. 

[spirosz]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Seboist wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins is not Mass Effect, is it?

Definitely isn't, it's a proper RPG whose choices wipe the floor with the entire ME trilogy.

Battle of Denerim > Battle of Earth

The ME series was never a full fledged RPG or advertised as one.

It certainly tries to be, sometimes to its own detriment. ME1's inventory system, which I consider the worst of any RPG ever, demonstrated what happens when you worry too much about checklisting all your RPG features. It's one reason why I throw so much praise out on Jade Empire. 

That's what I'm saying though - it was more heavily focused in terms of stats and ****ty inventory system in ME1, but other than that, it was still a hybrid at heart. As Mass Effect two and three were, with two going in the opposite direction (from certain RPG aspects) and three trying to get the balance, which I found it did, in terms of gameplay, but less in terms of PC, for me at least.

Plus, I love Jade Empire.

Seb's original post was primarily referring to the handling of choices though, not other RPG elements. And having your choices matter is something that was heavily advertised for ME.

That is true.  Personally, I dislike the whole advertising of "choices and consquences" that games have been trying push in the past few years... like they weren't in games from years back.  

[David7204]

It's sure as hell not all the motivation I needed.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreamgazer wrote...
They needed to conduct their business, from start to finish, in a way that allowed for multiple interpretations about why they're preventing organic life from progressing beyond a certain point---why all of this has happened before, and why all of it will happen again.

Simple motive, with hints at complex possibilities as to exactly "why".

^^^^^^
This
I was quite content thinking of them as an overly arrogant post singularity civilization myself.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 14 mai 2013 - 01:16 .

[David7204]

Do I need to define hindsight bias, maybe? Start a thread? Should I go back to threads made in 2010 and 2011 and look at how many posters were suggesting the Reapers shouldn't have a motive at all? Because I'm guessing I wouldn't find very many.

Or am I just overestimating people on the BSN?

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 01:19 .

[spirosz]

David7204 wrote...

Do I need to define hindsight bias, maybe? Start a thread? Should I go back to threads made in 2010 and 2011 and look at how many posters were suggesting the Reapers shouldn't have a motive at all? Because I'm guessing I wouldn't find very many.

Or am I just overestimating people on the BSN?

It's more so David, what a lot of people though were going to happen, ended up conflicting with what they might consider rubbish in terms of ME3's Reaper motivation... might as well be better off without "explaining" that motive in certain people's eyes.  

Modifié par spirosz, 14 mai 2013 - 01:21 .

[Caprea]

To quote Varric: "Point - missing it. Oh well..." - This pretty much sums it up for me.

If Hudson, Everman and Gamble believe that the lack of closure was the only problem about ME3, or at least the most striking one, then they completely missed the point. Oh well.


We'll see how many of their promises and good resolutions they keep next time around, namely with DA:I. I'm not expecting all too much, but hopefully they will have learned by then.

[spirosz]

dea_ex_machina wrote...

I'm not expecting all too much

That is the best way to approach games. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

Do I need to define hindsight bias, maybe? Start a thread? Should I go back to threads made in 2010 and 2011 and look at how many posters were suggesting the Reapers shouldn't have a motive at all? Because I'm guessing I wouldn't find very many.

Or am I just overestimating people on the BSN?

You're confusing no motive with vague ambigious motive, which incidently is how speculation can work in fiction.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 14 mai 2013 - 01:29 .

[David7204]

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Do I need to define hindsight bias, maybe? Start a thread? Should I go back to threads made in 2010 and 2011 and look at how many posters were suggesting the Reapers shouldn't have a motive at all? Because I'm guessing I wouldn't find very many.

Or am I just overestimating people on the BSN?

It's more so David, what a lot of people though were going to happen, ended up conflicting with what they might consider rubbish in terms of ME3's Reaper motivation... might as well be better off without "explaining" that motive in certain people's eyes.  

That's pretty much a word-for-word definition of hindsight bias.

And there's a very big problem with hindsight bias.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 01:36 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Do I need to define hindsight bias, maybe? Start a thread? Should I go back to threads made in 2010 and 2011 and look at how many posters were suggesting the Reapers shouldn't have a motive at all? Because I'm guessing I wouldn't find very many.

Or am I just overestimating people on the BSN?

Who cares about what those posters said then? This is what's being said now. You weren't there then to voice your opinion. Neither was I.

And insulting your way to the end of the conversation---whether it's the opposing position or the posters themselves---does not ensure that you'll appear more correct when it's all over. You, among others who do it, lose more credibility every time you attempt to bully your way into accuracy.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 mai 2013 - 01:46 .

[dreamgazer]

Greylycantrope wrote...

You're confusing no motive with vague ambigious motive, which incidently is how speculation can work in fiction.

Ding, ding.

[David7204]

First of all, it makes an immense difference what posters advocating for 'no motive' now said in 2010 or 2011, because it determines if their statements are hypocrisy or not.

I can assure you I take no pleasure in trying to teach these concepts. You'll notice I made multiple posts beforehand attempting to explain things? Logic can only go so far. All too often people simply ignore it. They're less likely to ignore something a little more direct.

Modifié par David7204, 14 mai 2013 - 01:51 .

[CaptainCommander]

""We'd never have imagined that as we ended the trilogy, all people would want to do was spend more time with the characters, sort of bathing in the afterglow - getting closure and just having some time to live in the universe that they fought to save."

This makes me realise that the next game is gonna be TERRIBLE. ME2 was all about the characters, you had 12 stories where you spent at least one mission with them knowing their story and its suddenly a surprise that people want closure for their characters?

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, it makes an immense difference what posters advocating for 'no motive' now said in 2010 or 2011, because it determines if their statements are hypocrisy or not.

I can assure you I take no pleasure in trying to teach these concepts. You'll notice I made multiple posts beforehand attempting to explain things? Logic can only go so far. All too often people simply ignore it. They're less likely to ignore something a little more direct.

If you're going on a per-individual basis, sure. But that doesn't accurately convey the climate of the entire BSN, nor does it cover the feelings of the public on a larger scale---hence, why I mention you, I, and other people who simply weren't around then.

What was presented by Sovereign and contextualized by ME2 was enough for me.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 mai 2013 - 01:59 .

[dreamgazer]

Done one of them there double-post things. Nothing to see.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 mai 2013 - 02:01 .

[David7204]

And that opinion has absolutely nothing to do with a comparison to the Reaper motive in ME 3?

[Headcount]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, it makes an immense difference what posters advocating for 'no motive' now said in 2010 or 2011, because it determines if their statements are hypocrisy or not.

I can assure you I take no pleasure in trying to teach these concepts. You'll notice I made multiple posts beforehand attempting to explain things? Logic can only go so far. All too often people simply ignore it. They're less likely to ignore something a little more direct.