267 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

All mediums have their advantages and limitations.

[chemiclord]

spirosz wrote...

Is it really relevant to compare books to games?

In the sense that I see little difference between the two as a storytelling medium?  Yes.  I don't particularly accept the argument that stories can't be told a certain way because "video games are different."

There are many valid approaches to storytelling, and it's perfectly fine to not like one type of approach (I for example, really don't like the escapism that iakus does).  But to reject an approach as inappropriate within any specific type of medium?  I'll never accept that.

Modifié par chemiclord, 29 mai 2013 - 01:43 .

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

There are many valid approaches to storytelling, and it's perfectly fine to not like one type of approach (I for example, really don't like the escapism that iakus does).  But to reject an approach as inappropriate within any specific type of medium?  I'll never accept that.

If a game's story has been escapism for virtually the entire run, suddenly deciding at the very end to deliver a "message" especially a poorly done one, is, I'm sorry to say, inappropriate.  

[David7204]

We don't need to be equating heroism and success with 'escapism.'

[DeinonSlayer]

Just a question, David, but is there anyone on these boards besides you who makes such frequent use of the word "heroism?" I honestly question how much it matters to people.

[David7204]

The reaction to the endings is proof that it matters a great deal to people.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

We don't need to be equating heroism and success with 'escapism.'

On that, we can agree.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

There are many valid approaches to storytelling, and it's perfectly fine to not like one type of approach (I for example, really don't like the escapism that iakus does).  But to reject an approach as inappropriate within any specific type of medium?  I'll never accept that.

If a game's story has been escapism for virtually the entire run, suddenly deciding at the very end to deliver a "message" especially a poorly done one, is, I'm sorry to say, inappropriate.  

I was experiencing and role-playing a science-fiction story with intriguing characters and spellcasting space-military tactics. I wasn't using it as a form of escapism, or a vicarious vehicle for empowerment. Did you get more enjoyment out of it than I did?

And the series has been communicating messages, often dark ones, from the beginning. 

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

I was experiencing and role-playing a science-fiction story with intriguing characters and spellcasting space-military tactics. I wasn't using it as a form of escapism, or a vicarious vehicle for empowerment. Did you get more enjoyment out of it than I did?

I'm not a mind reader.

And the series has been communicating messages, often dark ones, from the beginning. 

It's also been communicating that such darkness can be overcome without capitualiting to it.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I was experiencing and role-playing a science-fiction story with intriguing characters and spellcasting space-military tactics. I wasn't using it as a form of escapism, or a vicarious vehicle for empowerment. Did you get more enjoyment out of it than I did?

I'm not a mind reader.

Does one have to experience the escapism and empowerment to understand the "heart and soul" of the series?

And the series has been communicating messages, often dark ones, from the beginning. 

It's also been communicating that such darkness can be overcome without capitualiting to it.

... alongside the fact that certain losses and hard decisions are, indeed, necessary and largely unavoidable.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 29 mai 2013 - 02:32 .

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

... alongside the fact that certain losses and hard decisions are, indeed, necessary and largely unavoidable.

Certain  losses, yes.  But not on this scale.  Not even close.

[GoldFlsh]

For what it's worth I agree with dreamgazer. My ME3 was definitely a story filled with lots of sacrifice and tragedy, I enjoyed it. The ending's tone wasn't too far fetched, just the ending's content was awful. "Execution" as one would say.

[chemiclord]

GoldFlsh wrote...

For what it's worth I agree with dreamgazer. My ME3 was definitely a story filled with lots of sacrifice and tragedy, I enjoyed it. The ending's tone wasn't too far fetched, just the ending's content was awful. "Execution" as one would say.

ME3's ending DOES fit the tone of ME3 if you basically played it fresh to the series (no import, basically the default options, that sort of thing).  As a stand alone, thematically it meshes (it's still horribly executed, though).

As I look back, really, ALL THREE games are like that, though.  All of them really are kinda detached from each other, even with the carry over options.  It's really part of the reason that I have such a hard time "ranking" them in how good they are.  

When I look at them all as stand alone games, ME2 was the best of the lot.  As a trilogy, however, it really... well... is VERY lacking.  It does next to nothing to advance the story.  The characters, while many are engaging, become game mechanics more than anything (due to the anyone can die bit, they kinda have to be shuffled off into the background).  It BARELY touches on the primary antagonists of the series with a motivation that really isn't a motivation at all.  It really is a very poor game within the context of the series.  It just goes nowhere fast.

In some ways... they are more three games that happen to be set in the same setting more than three connected stories in a series.  Because, as a series, for someone who has invested years in this trilogy in name only... I mean... I can certainly understand why a lot of them would find it to be a pretty harsh let-down.

Modifié par chemiclord, 29 mai 2013 - 05:32 .

[AresKeith]

chemiclord wrote...

GoldFlsh wrote...

For what it's worth I agree with dreamgazer. My ME3 was definitely a story filled with lots of sacrifice and tragedy, I enjoyed it. The ending's tone wasn't too far fetched, just the ending's content was awful. "Execution" as one would say.

ME3's ending DOES fit the tone of ME3 if you basically played it fresh to the series (no import, basically the default options, that sort of thing).  As a stand alone, thematically it meshes (it's still horribly executed, though).

As I look back, really, ALL THREE games are like that, though.  All of them really are kinda detached from each other, even with the carry over options.  It's really part of the reason that I have such a hard time "ranking" them in how good they are.  

When I look at them all as stand alone games, ME2 was the best of the lot.  As a trilogy, however, it really... well... is VERY lacking.  It does next to nothing to advance the story.  The characters, while many are engaging, become game mechanics more than anything (due to the anyone can die bit, they kinda have to be shuffled off into the background).  It BARELY touches on the primary antagonists of the series with a motivation that really isn't a motivation at all.  It really is a very poor game within the context of the series.  It just goes nowhere fast.

In some ways... they are more three games that happen to be set in the same setting more than three connected stories in a series.  Because, as a series, for someone who has invested years in this trilogy in name only... I mean... I can certainly understand why a lot of them would find it to be a pretty harsh let-down.

And that is my overall issue with the trilogy, I hope in the future Bioware will proper plan out a trilogy

[ghost9191]

about the whole "is it worse than we thought?" or whatever. i didn't memorize the queston

idk i think it hit core fans harder . those that followed it from the beginning . i personally got a bit attached , but can deal with the ending.

and well the original was crap lol for the lack of closure and a,b,c ending alone . good way to end a trilogy i suppose. it was lacking though and considering the information we had, i doubt anyone wanted the game to end in teh galaxy being wiped out lol . EC fixed that i guess though =)

note : i brought up the abc part because casey did say that wasn't going to be the case

and i suppose it is different if she played it with EC and didn't see the original , that is "IF" though

Modifié par ghost9191, 29 mai 2013 - 05:43 .

[Wolfva2]

David7204 wrote...

The reaction to the endings is proof that it matters a great deal to people.

And?  Your point?   A bunch of people hated the ending, and they screamed about it.  So what?  Other people liked the ending.  When they mention that fact here, they get drowned out by the haters.  People who like something seldom feel like fighting about it.  People who hate something WANT to fight about it.  Haters love to share their hatred; they gather in groups; look at the 'Occupy' protests.  Do you honestly think they represented 99% of the people?  They didn't.  Most people didn't care about them, or their movement.  Some people agreed with them, but not enough to get involved.  Some people disagreed strongly with them, but not so strongly that they'd create a counter movement. 

That's the problem with haters.  They form into 'echo chambers'.  They then convince themselves that EVERYONE ELSE agrees with them, because those are the only voices that they hear.  Yeah, a lot of people didn't like the ending.  I would hazard a guess that MOST people didn't care enough to protest them.  Some liked the ending, some were ok, some were like, "Bleh, that sucked.  Oh well, think I'll make a sandwich and move on with my life."  And a small minority were, "OMG!  This is the WORST THING EVER!  HAAAATE!!! HAAAATE!!!!  Pillage and burn!  Down with Bioware!  Arggg!  RagehateRAAAGE!!!!"  And here they are, over a year later, still screaming for blood and thinking that EVERYONE agrees with them because they are to myopic to look outside of the echo chamber.

After EA was determined to be the 'Worst Company Evah!', I read an article written by a non-gamer.  He pointed out other companies that were maybe more worthy of the title.  You know, companies that trashed the environment, killed employees with poor safety standards, actively stole from their shareholders, etc.  He couldn't believe that a bunch of nerds crying about the ending of some stupid game thought THAT was important enough to make EA the worst company.  As a gamer, I agree with him.  You guys make me embarrassed to admit I even play ME3.  The ending is an issue that matters to only a fraction of a percent of the world's population.  It DOESN"T MATTER.  If you don't like the ending, then simply stop buying Bioware products.  You'll have your sweet sweet revenge when they go out of business since SURELY your patronage is the ONLY thing keeping them running.  

[GoldFlsh]

chemiclord wrote...

GoldFlsh wrote...

For what it's worth I agree with dreamgazer. My ME3 was definitely a story filled with lots of sacrifice and tragedy, I enjoyed it. The ending's tone wasn't too far fetched, just the ending's content was awful. "Execution" as one would say.

ME3's ending DOES fit the tone of ME3 if you basically played it fresh to the series (no import, basically the default options, that sort of thing).  As a stand alone, thematically it meshes (it's still horribly executed, though).

As I look back, really, ALL THREE games are like that, though.  All of them really are kinda detached from each other, even with the carry over options.  It's really part of the reason that I have such a hard time "ranking" them in how good they are.  

When I look at them all as stand alone games, ME2 was the best of the lot.  As a trilogy, however, it really... well... is VERY lacking.  It does next to nothing to advance the story.  The characters, while many are engaging, become game mechanics more than anything (due to the anyone can die bit, they kinda have to be shuffled off into the background).  It BARELY touches on the primary antagonists of the series with a motivation that really isn't a motivation at all.  It really is a very poor game within the context of the series.  It just goes nowhere fast.

In some ways... they are more three games that happen to be set in the same setting more than three connected stories in a series.  Because, as a series, for someone who has invested years in this trilogy in name only... I mean... I can certainly understand why a lot of them would find it to be a pretty harsh let-down.

It certainly fits the tone of the trilogy, aswell, if you didn't play a "perfect" -game-. There was plenty of places in the trilogy where sacrifice could and did happen. Sometimes you can lose, and that's ok because it makes the story more interesting. One of my favorite moments was choosing between Quarians/Geth on Rannoch because I couldn't get a perfect outcome because I couldn't (didn't) plead Tali's case in ME2 and so she was exiled. Her clear head (loyalty) at the time was more important to me than her standing with the migrant fleet. Sometimes the "win" mechanics of the game make the story less interesting but they have to be there because this is a video game. 

There's some unavoidable tragic moments or loss, as well. Virmire. Arrival. Liara's innocence    <_<. Loss of lives killing Sovereign (either the destiny ascension's crew + council or the countless human lives rescuing them, since people tend to forget about these nameless dudes RIP [P.S. No it is not the "correct" decision to save the council maybe just the "politically correct" one]). All in the name of stopping the Reapers. 

Point is they didn't give you an out for every single situation, and I do like that in this situation there also is no out. The goal of the ending was admirable, the ending was awful. I really did want and expect a tragic ending. I'm just disappointed that it was so random and out of left field.

Off-Topicish but still a reply:
ME2 was about the characters, each character had their own story to tell and you walked around your ship and talked to them and heard that story. So the game was about telling 10-12 short stories in the context of the universe. Honestly, not a big fan of ME2's story after playing it three times now. Suicide mission cool! but...getting there... ME2 definitely had the best use of the dialogue wheel however, that I miss. And certainly, because they were telling 10-12 short stories instead of one long one they were able to pack so much variation into those stories and how they play out. I wish it was possible to fail more of the loyalty missions, but that's another topic.

ME3 was about making decisions, everywhere you go you're making a big meaningful galaxy shattering decision (finally a non-binary decision system). And all these decisions come with real meaningful consequences, yes these consequences end up boiling down to a number, but if you really look at the decisions you either doom the Krogans out of existance to lock in Salarian -scientist- support (hey there crucible) or you choose to forego that scientist support in favor of the Krogans (And possibly Kirrahe support if alive, I think he is also a fighting force so still no scientists) so you have more muscle but less brains. Or maybe you actually can successfully lie to the Krogans (that's on your conscious) and lock in all support you need. The game is all about decisions, these decisions were already made throughout the game, and trilogy. It's more linear, but tells a more engaging story because of it in my opinion. Maybe the ending shoulda been based on what kind of support you got, instead of a number...crucible(no star kid) works if you got more scientists, conventional victory if you got more fighting forces. A super win if you manage to lock in everything? Ehh...well. I still enjoy ME3 because of the not binary decision making process even if I have to download a mod to enjoy the ending.

Modifié par GoldFlsh, 29 mai 2013 - 07:30 .

[GoldFlsh]

@Wolfva

1) You misunderstood his post. He's saying that the ending backlash is caused by people's personal interest in heroism.

2) You need to cool down, we don't know or care what the people who aren't talking feel. They have just as much right to go to a forum and air their grievances or praise with the story. But they didn't. That shouldn't stop people like you or me from discussing it. However, you don't really have any basis to declare that the people saying anything is a vocal minority frothing at the mouth. I'm certainly not frothing or screaming obscenities, I'm disappointed. That's my prerogative.

3) If you don't want to talk to people who don't share your opinion, you can go talk to people who liked the ending in a private forum meant only for people who liked the ending.

[Wolfva2]

Goldfish,
1) Quite possibly. I wasn't really addressing David ( I usually agree with him), but the entire hater community in a general manner. I do that pretty often on this forum, I've noticed.

2)No, I don't. Don't confuse being emphatic with being hot headed or angry. Further, did you really just try to defend discussion by telling someone he can't discuss an opposing viewpoint? Interesting idea on discussion. See, when you have a discussion without opposing viewpoints, you're IN AN ECHO CHAMBER CHAaaamberrr aaamber berrrr errrrr rrrrrrr

Which is my point. That the haters (which is a very specific subset of the people who dislike the game and are very vociferous about it) think that they're a majority solely because their voices are loud. If as many people were on their side as they claim, the Citadel DLC would not have sold so many copies.

3) Why, thank you so very much for giving me your permission! But, go bugger yeself bucko (no, I'm not angry. Just wanted to use that phrase). Ya see, we're back to discussion verses echo chamber. You don't want to have a discussion. You just want to sit with like minded folks and gripe about how evil BW is, how stupid and inept their writers are, and how they are the most EEEeeeeeEEEEEvilllll SOBs in the entire omniverse because Shepard didn't screw the reapers to death with his +3 crook of maximum wang-age and lived happily ever after. You don't want a forum. You want an echo chamber. In which case, you might want to put me on ignore right now. Because I'm the guy putting up drapes <LOL>.

[PsyrenY]

Robosexual wrote...

In answer to one of your few questions:

Silcron wrote...

is Mass Effect 3 ending as bad as we've made it look?

Noooo. The reaction to the end was probably the biggest overreaction in videogaming history. It was blown so far out of proportion it hit the stratosphere.

[PsyrenY]

Wolfva2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The reaction to the endings is proof that it matters a great deal to people.

And?  Your point?   A bunch of people hated the ending, and they screamed about it.  So what?  Other people liked the ending.  When they mention that fact here, they get drowned out by the haters.  People who like something seldom feel like fighting about it.  People who hate something WANT to fight about it.  Haters love to share their hatred; they gather in groups; look at the 'Occupy' protests.  Do you honestly think they represented 99% of the people?  They didn't.  Most people didn't care about them, or their movement.  Some people agreed with them, but not enough to get involved.  Some people disagreed strongly with them, but not so strongly that they'd create a counter movement. 

That's the problem with haters.  They form into 'echo chambers'.  They then convince themselves that EVERYONE ELSE agrees with them, because those are the only voices that they hear.  Yeah, a lot of people didn't like the ending.  I would hazard a guess that MOST people didn't care enough to protest them.  Some liked the ending, some were ok, some were like, "Bleh, that sucked.  Oh well, think I'll make a sandwich and move on with my life."  And a small minority were, "OMG!  This is the WORST THING EVER!  HAAAATE!!! HAAAATE!!!!  Pillage and burn!  Down with Bioware!  Arggg!  RagehateRAAAGE!!!!"  And here they are, over a year later, still screaming for blood and thinking that EVERYONE agrees with them because they are to myopic to look outside of the echo chamber.

After EA was determined to be the 'Worst Company Evah!', I read an article written by a non-gamer.  He pointed out other companies that were maybe more worthy of the title.  You know, companies that trashed the environment, killed employees with poor safety standards, actively stole from their shareholders, etc.  He couldn't believe that a bunch of nerds crying about the ending of some stupid game thought THAT was important enough to make EA the worst company.  As a gamer, I agree with him.  You guys make me embarrassed to admit I even play ME3.  The ending is an issue that matters to only a fraction of a percent of the world's population.  It DOESN"T MATTER.  If you don't like the ending, then simply stop buying Bioware products.  You'll have your sweet sweet revenge when they go out of business since SURELY your patronage is the ONLY thing keeping them running.  

I... I think I love you.

[Bleachrude]

iakus wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

There are many valid approaches to storytelling, and it's perfectly fine to not like one type of approach (I for example, really don't like the escapism that iakus does).  But to reject an approach as inappropriate within any specific type of medium?  I'll never accept that.

If a game's story has been escapism for virtually the entire run, suddenly deciding at the very end to deliver a "message" especially a poorly done one, is, I'm sorry to say, inappropriate.  

Technically, that's not true though...

ME1 started off with you losing Jenkins (admit it...at the time of ME1, did anyone actually think Jenkins would die?) and you lost Nihilus (who I bet everyone was thinking was going to be a long time companion/mentor) soon after.

Then midway through ME1, you have to decide which team-member bites the big one....

Thus, in the 1st game alone, you lose 3 people (2 of whom are actual squad-mates)..

Of course, none of the 3 do we get to know beforehand as much as say EDI....

[Nerevar-as]

Bleachrude wrote...

ME1 started off with you losing Jenkins (admit it...at the time of ME1, did anyone actually think Jenkins would die?) and you lost Nihilus (who I bet everyone was thinking was going to be a long time companion/mentor) soon after.

Then midway through ME1, you have to decide which team-member bites the big one....

Thus, in the 1st game alone, you lose 3 people (2 of whom are actual squad-mates)..

Of course, none of the 3 do we get to know beforehand as much as say EDI....

Leeroy L Jenkins.  The only surprise was that he didn´t charge "heroically" to his death.

[Nole]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

ME1 started off with you losing Jenkins (admit it...at the time of ME1, did anyone actually think Jenkins would die?) and you lost Nihilus (who I bet everyone was thinking was going to be a long time companion/mentor) soon after.

Then midway through ME1, you have to decide which team-member bites the big one....

Thus, in the 1st game alone, you lose 3 people (2 of whom are actual squad-mates)..

Of course, none of the 3 do we get to know beforehand as much as say EDI....

Leeroy L Jenkins.  The only surprise was that he didn´t charge "heroically" to his death.

OMG! I never realized it! And I call myself a WOW fan xD.

Modifié par WittingEight65, 29 mai 2013 - 01:02 .