1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

Robosexual wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

So at least half of an incredible minority thinks it sucks.

Well, it could be half the incredible minority thinks it is good!

We don't know.  BioWare says they do on secret spreadsheets that they can't show us.  Which just makes them look stupid, even if they are telling the truth. 

Your point is who knows the numbers really, right?  I agree.  That is why it is dumb to call SOMEONE A VOCAL MINORITY with no backup.  Hey, I mentioned who just did that, didn't I?

So in conclusion, the analogy that was used definately doesn't apply to ME3.

I'm not sure what analogy exactly you mean here.  Just because the discussion has gone on so long.  But I think it is silly to put no worthwhile credit in opinions because there's a perception (and that's what I'm going to call it) that they are a minority.  That's silly.  And with the statements that have come from BioWare, I'm going to say that they have done exactly that...put no worthwhile credit on disagreeing opinions because they have a particular perception.

[Emphyr]

Well i hope they learned lessons, but i wonder.. The only way to convince me that they have is if they are delivering the next ME as one of the best games ever (including endings)

Personally i see the interview as starting to hype the next ME game again and PR and damage control. They want to sell the next game.

Well they "might" have learned lessons but i have also! They learned me never ever again to buy a 90 Euro hyped collectors item game that only 2 months later is for sale at 14,99 euro.

I will surely not buy the next Bioware game on day 1 with day 1 DLC, but wait for customer reviews and lets plays on Youtube.

I still wish i would have donated my 90 Euro i spent on ME3 to a good charity fund.

I am now playing the Ur Quan Masters (Star Control2) HD version for free. But i imagined i bought it and donated some euro's to Greenpeace in their campain to save the honeybees.

Take care you all.

[Th3 Bunman]

Lessons learned...maybe...just like they were listening to fans but not actually hearing what the fans were saying.Someone from Bioware really messed up.They just need to admit that they messed up and be done with it.If they did that i don't think we would have seen the level of feedback that they have gotten.

[o Ventus]

Robosexual wrote...

So at least half of an incredible minority thinks it sucks.

You stake a lot of objective claims, like "incredible minority", but have no way of reliably proving your point.

It's funny because you're trying to present yourself as being correct.

[PsyrenY]

CronoDragoon wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

People like the Abrams Star Trek reboot? Why?

www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

Oh my god you win all my internets for sharing this :D:D

[warblewobble]

*sigh* I was just writing nice things about Bioware and then I read this article. I know it's old hat, but does "underestimating" attachment to the characters really translate to a half-minute nonsense ending? I think that's more "underestimating" fans' attachment to the narrative and series and their expectation that a game actually has a conclusion. I've played FPS and fighting games that made a more decent effort at giving an ending.

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

People like the Abrams Star Trek reboot? Why?

www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

This is the correct answer.

[Clayless]

o Ventus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

So at least half of an incredible minority thinks it sucks.

You stake a lot of objective claims, like "incredible minority", but have no way of reliably proving your point.

It's funny because you're trying to present yourself as being correct.

I'm not quite sure how many of us there are here on BSN, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to say we're the incredible minority. If I was really pushed to find the answer I could look for the biggest poll on BSN about ME3 and judge from that.

Modifié par Robosexual, 18 mai 2013 - 11:05 .

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

I'm not quite sure how many of us there are here on BSN, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to say we're the incredible minority. If I was really pushed to find the answer I could look for the biggest poll on BSN about ME3 and judge from that.

That was probably the one from ages ago that was really against ME3, to the point of even allowing for the fact that the people who dislike are more likely to turn up and say something looked pretty damning. Of course the whole "minority" thing relies on the fact that no matter how brilliant or awful something is the majority will never express an opinion either way.

[Kel Riever]

Reorte wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I'm not quite sure how many of us there are here on BSN, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to say we're the incredible minority. If I was really pushed to find the answer I could look for the biggest poll on BSN about ME3 and judge from that.

That was probably the one from ages ago that was really against ME3, to the point of even allowing for the fact that the people who dislike are more likely to turn up and say something looked pretty damning. Of course the whole "minority" thing relies on the fact that no matter how brilliant or awful something is the majority will never express an opinion either way.

@Robosexual, too.  Sometimes I can't tell when you guys are being sarcastic.  That having been said, I think it is pretty safe to call you both logical enough to notice others who like to claim faith in calling others minorities are off their rockers.  If I had to go by what I see on the internet, there is enough haet to think people who disliked the ending are a vocal 'minority'  but I'm not going to be silly enough to say I have some hidden spreadsheets that prove my point.  :innocent:

[chemiclord]

It really doesn't matter WHO the majority or minority is.

Yes, the vast majority of customers aren't going to say anything either way. That does NOT mean they like it or hate it or are representative of any one side. It means they don't care that strongly to state it on-line.

That said... that vast majority is the one Bioware largely has to try and appeal to. The only way we'll know how much "damage" ME3's ending did is by the sales figures for the next ME game... and even then it might not say all that much, depending on what Bioware Montreal actually does.

[Linkenski]

I don't even think Mac Walters is being dishonest when he says "vocal minority" i just think he doesn't give a **** and hasn't really been scouting for feedback himself. If he is indeed Lead Writer again on the next ME we'll probably see some of the same missteps in terms of the writing, being pulled off again.

[Clayless]

Kel Riever wrote...

@Robosexual, too.  Sometimes I can't tell when you guys are being sarcastic.  That having been said, I think it is pretty safe to call you both logical enough to notice others who like to claim faith in calling others minorities are off their rockers.  If I had to go by what I see on the internet, there is enough haet to think people who disliked the ending are a vocal 'minority'  but I'm not going to be silly enough to say I have some hidden spreadsheets that prove my point.  :innocent:

Am I going nuts or do people actually believe BSN is the majority?

Like, is Ashton Kutcher going to bust through my door and tell me I've been Punk'd?

[Megaton_Hope]

dreamgazer wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
Another adult thing is when you realise that imagining something is a mistake doesn't actually make it so. I could think that (any media ever) is a mistake, but expecting the people who made it to, erm, "admit" that isn't something that adults should expect. Usually adults can tell the difference between reality and their opinion.

I have an example.

I call it Highlander 2. 

-snip-

Are we really equating Mass Effect 3's issues with Highlander 2? 

Because, I mean, damn. 

I wouldn't go that far (I mean, I'm not a monster), but its existence constitutes an elegant disproof of the argument which Robosexual makes above. I can watch Highlander 2, and in doing so (having done so) can recognize and acknowledge that it is objectively awful, worthless story-telling at a very basic level. Even though I didn't write, produce or direct it!

In reality, Highlander 2 was a very bad movie, and its production was a waste of a lot of time, money and talent that could better have been spent in other ways. Wasting that time, money and talent was a mistake. Or, failing that, actually evil. (I woke up this morning and I thought "I can either use this $34 million to feed the hungry, or I can chuck it all in a hole and burn it. Who doesn't love a bonfire?")

There is subjectivity in story-telling, just like there is for any kind of creative work. Doesn't mean there's no such thing as an objectively bad story. Objectively bad stories are told all the time. One sure-fire way to write a bad story is to trust to the audience to make what you produce meaningful and engaging.

[Clayless]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

-snip-

What would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

Modifié par Robosexual, 19 mai 2013 - 03:21 .

[In Exile]

Robosexual wrote...
What would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

In terms of proving it, you'd come up with some generally agreed on features that are central to a good story, and then see if a particular story has them.

You could probablly use things like "coherent", "well-developed characters", etc. 

[Clayless]

In Exile wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
What would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

In terms of proving it, you'd come up with some generally agreed on features that are central to a good story, and then see if a particular story has them.

You could probablly use things like "coherent", "well-developed characters", etc. 

You could try, but then you would come up against obstacles such as films which aren't very coherent, or develop into farce (due to being a comedy or perhaps because of an unreliable narrator) which are acclaimed, such as Brazil or Airplane. Well-developed characters would also come across things such as characters with very little to no developement (like The Joker) or characters which very little is known about.

If it was objectively bad then this wouldn't be the case. You wouldn't argue about whether or not this or that is good or bad, as they would simply be bad, no question about it.

Modifié par Robosexual, 19 mai 2013 - 03:50 .

[Indy_S]

I agree with Robo. You can't make any claim towards what makes a story objectively good. Each rule in regards to creativity has been broken in both spectacular and lackluster ways.

It is, however, a good idea for any writer to look at their work and work out for themselves what they did right and what they could do better. Audience reaction is one of many measuring sticks they can use for deciding this.

[dreamgazer]

Robosexual wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

-snip-

What would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

Oh, you're just itching to start a flame war with a question like that. 

[Megaton_Hope]

Robosexual wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

-snip-

What would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

Probably most productive to talk about an objectively good story, since the hallmark of a bad one is that it lacks the qualities that would have made it a good story.

Front and center is the message or theme; everything else about a story flows from "what it is about." (And this is where the subjectivity comes in, because if you don't like what a story is "about," there's not much room for liking the story.) For the theme to be a good one, it should have some connection to where the story occurs, what kind of people we meet during the story, and what happens to them.

Not having a theme, or not clearly expressing the chosen theme through the action, would be bad.

The characters should behave like real people, with realistic motivations. Particularly the protagonist and the people with whom he or she spends the most time, but also his/her rivals and adversaries. Characters whose decisions don't follow from their background, temperament, training and experiences are simply being driven by author convenience.

And the events of the story should follow logically from one another in terms of cause and effect. Isolating pieces of the action from the internal logic of the narrative makes the transition from one to the next more jarring.

Th' only time I could personally see justifying breaking those particular rules is for consciously absurdist comedy.

[chemiclord]

There's no set hard and fast rules for what makes a "good" story and a "bad" one. Nearly ANYTHING can appeal to an audience; it all boils down to its execution; does it trigger the desired response (which can be either be "positive" or "negative") in the audience it targets.

There are certain rules which are considered more reliable in triggering that desired response, but interestingly enough about the only genre of writing that has a largely set "formula" is romance novels... and they are not particularly held in high regard by society as a whole.

[BomimoDK]

They haven't learnt ****:

I've learned that a bitter-sweet ending is much easier to watch in a movie, than experience in a long RPG where the player is very invested in the protagonist.

It wasn't bitter-sweet. It was retarded and lazy. Bitter-sweet would be going out in a blaze of glory, not going out in a giant gay-pride parade.

[Clayless]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

What would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

Probably most productive to talk about an objectively good story, since the hallmark of a bad one is that it lacks the qualities that would have made it a good story.

Front and center is the message or theme; everything else about a story flows from "what it is about." (And this is where the subjectivity comes in, because if you don't like what a story is "about," there's not much room for liking the story.) For the theme to be a good one, it should have some connection to where the story occurs, what kind of people we meet during the story, and what happens to them.

Not having a theme, or not clearly expressing the chosen theme through the action, would be bad.

The characters should behave like real people, with realistic motivations. Particularly the protagonist and the people with whom he or she spends the most time, but also his/her rivals and adversaries. Characters whose decisions don't follow from their background, temperament, training and experiences are simply being driven by author convenience.

And the events of the story should follow logically from one another in terms of cause and effect. Isolating pieces of the action from the internal logic of the narrative makes the transition from one to the next more jarring.

Th' only time I could personally see justifying breaking those particular rules is for consciously absurdist comedy.

Great, but that's subjective, and doesn't exactly answer the question:

What would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

Examples and speeches are great, but it's not the same as actually answering the question. You can do things that make it look like you're saying something ("elegantly dispove, there is such a thing as objectively bad, better to talk about what's good, etc") but unless there's something to back that up, some example you have, something you can prove, then it's just a lot of writing about nothing really. It's not a trick question, nor is it a question that should be stopped by subjectivity. Simply, what would you consider is an objectively bad story and how would you go about proving it?

Please don't reply with an answer about what makes a story subjectively bad, like you did above.

[Megaton_Hope]

While you may feel free to disagree, I feel that I have answered your question. Since I am the only person qualified to judge whether my post was a good post or not, and it was therefore the best post that has ever been made on this board (and anybody who disagrees with me about that is wrong and an imbecile), our discussion on the point of objectivity and subjectivity in the quality of narrative is concluded. Good day, thank you for your participation in this discussion.

There are a lot of examples I could produce for stories which are bad or which have been executed badly, but I don't really feel like going to the effort if you're going to be that obstinate about solipsism.

[Clayless]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

While you may feel free to disagree, I feel that I have answered your question. Since I am the only person qualified to judge whether my post was a good post or not, and it was therefore the best post that has ever been made on this board (and anybody who disagrees with me about that is wrong and an imbecile), our discussion on the point of objectivity and subjectivity in the quality of narrative is concluded. Good day, thank you for your participation in this discussion.

There are a lot of examples I could produce for stories which are bad or which have been executed badly, but I don't really feel like going to the effort if you're going to be that obstinate about solipsism.

Which isn't a case of "elegantly dispoving " something. It's great to say things, to make bold claims and point out the effects of those claims, but if you can't back them up then they hold no weight.

But if we're ending it here that's fine.

Modifié par Robosexual, 19 mai 2013 - 09:54 .