IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...
it's not bioware's fault.Shepard was shy but he opened up in me3TheMyron wrote...
I preferred it when Shepard would keep his responses short like in ME1 and ME2, and how I would choose EVERY SINGLE TIME what to say whenever it was Shepard's turn to speak.
Honestly I think he only cares to protect the game form invisible dragons damaging its "integrity", so far I have counted over 20 phrases (including its variations) as "missing the point".Wraith 02 wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.
It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.
Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility
The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series
Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.
And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.
It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.
I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.
To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.
Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.
Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.
This is the problem. Stop making out the games problem to be my problem, its not how a debate works. I asure that I "got" the ending. I got it was concept that was executed like a poorly cut fugu.
Stop degrading my opinion to serve yourself, its a disgraceful. If the game was anygood defend the game based on it own merits but don't attack me to try and debunk my opinion it just does not work that way
I attack the game but you attack me personally, it is wrong.
No, you really didn't get it...if you did, you would know WHY it ended that way.
Not all opinions are created equal...get over it.
Damn, the amount of arrogance in your posts is insane.
Blaming the audience for not understanding shoddy writing is cheap, personally insulting somebody's ability to understand something because they don't agree with you however is just plain pathetic.
Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 juin 2013 - 01:00 .
your right it is arguable, hence not difinitive. I struggle to see the humour:Pchemiclord wrote...
I still find it rather amusing that ME2 is considered the "best" of the series...
... when it is arguably the LEAST "RPG-like" of the three games.
Guest_Cthulhu42_*
There are more overrated games; Halo, for example.AlanC9 wrote...
ME1: most overrated game in the history of gaming.
Modifié par Cthulhu42, 05 juin 2013 - 01:10 .
TheMyron wrote...
I preferred it when Shepard would keep his responses short like in ME1 and ME2, and how I would choose EVERY SINGLE TIME what to say whenever it was Shepard's turn to speak.
Seboist wrote...
ME1 is the only one of the three that has a decent plot.
None of the three are that great as games though. Just the fact that it took three games to implement standard features like rolling and cover to cover illustrates that.
FlamingBoy wrote...
Honestly I think he only cares to protect the game form invisible dragons damaging its "integrity", so far I have counted over 20 phrases (including its variations) as "missing the point".Wraith 02 wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.
It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.
Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility
The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series
Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.
And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.
It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.
I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.
To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.
Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.
Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.
This is the problem. Stop making out the games problem to be my problem, its not how a debate works. I asure that I "got" the ending. I got it was concept that was executed like a poorly cut fugu.
Stop degrading my opinion to serve yourself, its a disgraceful. If the game was anygood defend the game based on it own merits but don't attack me to try and debunk my opinion it just does not work that way
I attack the game but you attack me personally, it is wrong.
No, you really didn't get it...if you did, you would know WHY it ended that way.
Not all opinions are created equal...get over it.
Damn, the amount of arrogance in your posts is insane.
Blaming the audience for not understanding shoddy writing is cheap, personally insulting somebody's ability to understand something because they don't agree with you however is just plain pathetic.
He only seeks to discredit the critics not actually defend the game, thankfully it shows he does not have a logical argument.
Modifié par Ravensword, 05 juin 2013 - 01:19 .
Seboist wrote...
ME1 is the only one of the three that has a decent plot.
None of the three are that great as games though. Just the fact that it took three games to implement standard features like rolling and cover to cover illustrates that.
Ravensword wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
Honestly I think he only cares to protect the game form invisible dragons damaging its "integrity", so far I have counted over 20 phrases (including its variations) as "missing the point".Wraith 02 wrote...
Damn, the amount of arrogance in your posts is insane.
Blaming the audience for not understanding shoddy writing is cheap, personally insulting somebody's ability to understand something because they don't agree with you however is just plain pathetic.
He only seeks to discredit the critics not actually defend the game, thankfully it shows he does not have a logical argument.
Um, you guys are arguing w/ an ITer... so, yeah. Just FYI.
Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 juin 2013 - 01:24 .
FlamingBoy wrote...
Seboist wrote...
ME1 is the only one of the three that has a decent plot.
None of the three are that great as games though. Just the fact that it took three games to implement standard features like rolling and cover to cover illustrates that.
Mass effect 1 and 2 as games would not have become the hypothetical "Great" game by simply adding cover and rolling, Mass Effect prime gameplay function was dialogue and choices and until me3 combat was always secoundary (important but secondary)
David7204 wrote...
Not only a completely stupid shilling, but a moronic definition of meaningful choice.
Guest_Cthulhu42_*
Let me guess, meaningful choice has something to do with "heroism"?David7204 wrote...
Not only a completely stupid shilling, but a moronic definition of meaningful choice.
David7204 wrote...
New Vegas at least is nowhere close to a good example of what choices in games should be, and implying that 'choices leading to more branches = better choices' is stupid.
David7204 wrote...
What does that have to do with 'choices leading to more branches = better choices'?
Guest_BringBackNihlus_*
David7204 wrote...
What does that have to do with 'choices leading to more branches = better choices'?
Guest_The Mad Hanar_*
BringBackNihlus wrote...
Only Luddites and anti-intellectual ghetto dwellers look at Mass Effect 3 as anything less than a masterpiece.
EverythingDavid7204 wrote...
What does that have to do with 'choices leading to more branches = better choices'?
dreamgazer wrote...
David7204 wrote...
What does that have to do with 'choices leading to more branches = better choices'?
Everything, David. More branches leads to different types of characters based on the directions they decide to go.
Modifié par David7204, 05 juin 2013 - 01:45 .
David7204 wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
David7204 wrote...
What does that have to do with 'choices leading to more branches = better choices'?
Everything, David. More branches leads to different types of characters based on the directions they decide to go.
No, it doesn't. You can have divergent characters that go through a linear storyline. And you can have branches that lead nowhere for character or narrative development.
Choices in a game should be about more than unlocking two different levels to shoot through.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut