865 réponses à ce sujet

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

How would your canon shepard have solved the collectors?

What would you if your shepard was able to leave cerberus and live?

Well first of all, if id fix ME2, I wouldnt turn the Alliance and Council into morons. Also instead of few human colonies dissapearing, I would up the threat. Id make it about Citadel-Terminus Wars which are ultimately manipulated by the collectors, and give player a 2 path choice how to do the game: Council or Cerberus.

In my version the threat is greater, the reapers are smarter, theres actual choice and the collector threat and mystery isnt handled clumsily (oh look husks, duh, they must work for the reapers hohohoh). Also some future hints like the batarian rebellion, Shadow Broker or the Terminus Wars, started in ME1 actually go somewhere.

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 09:56 .

[GimmeDaGun]

TheProtheans wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

To many it is, to many it is not. Go and try to do justice for both groups. You can't. People should realise and face it already: This is how fiction and art in general work (it doesn't matter what you consider art or not in this regard, since that's not the point here): sometimes you just don't get what you expect or consider good, though it does not mean that it is not good for someone else. There's no objective good or bad here. For instance I enjoy the ending of the game and the 3rd game very much, many hate it. Others praise the 2nd game to the heavens, while I think it is overrated as hell, and I find it the weakest of the 3 games. So, different tastes and preferences I guess, but there's nothing objective about it. I have 3 friends who play and like ME. Three of us like the ending, one of us doesn't. Does this mean that the ending is objectively good or that the majority likes it? Do the math yourself (I a help a bit though: no, it does not). 

I can understand how people can like the ending based on the something I do not understand or want to understand.
It is similar to Fox News, I just don't understand how one can watch and like that crap.
People liking ME3 just seems like something that unfortunately brings out the worst in humanity.

So you basically say, that if somebody likes the ending of this game andor the game itself, then that person is among the worst in humanity? Seriously dude...  This is very childish and I hope you see it too. 

You're taking it too serious, it was merely to humour me.

In that case I got you wrong. It could easily come across as a ridiculously extreme remark.

[Erez Kristal]

Why dont we scrap the entire plot while we are at it :-)
bottom line mass effect 2 worked because the magority of the players liked it. it was the highest rated user scored game for that year.
I gave you a rundown of shepard situation. shepard cannot control what the world around him do. he can only control himself.

Exploring the missing ships was the reasonable thing to do because shepard had no other strings to follow. dying to a more powerful force was un avoidable, its the risk soldiers take when they join in.
The alliance and council were morons. they had a different set of priorities and sheaprd was left out of the loop. no one trust a person who has dissapeared for two years and is rumored to work for cerberus. shepard choices were limited and since he is suppose to be a hero who wants to stop the reapers and their minions. working with cerberus was his only option.
They gave him a ship, a crew, fundings and edi. he needed all three to defeat the collectors and only cerberus had them.

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

Why dont we scrap the entire plot while we are at it :-)
bottom line mass effect 2 worked because the magority of the players liked it. it was the highest rated user scored game for that year.
I gave you a rundown of shepard situation. shepard cannot control what the world around him do. he can only control himself.

Exploring the missing ships was the reasonable thing to do because shepard had no other strings to follow. dying to a more powerful force was un avoidable, its the risk soldiers take when they join in.
The alliance and council were morons. they had a different set of priorities and sheaprd was left out of the loop. no one trust a person who has dissapeared for two years and is rumored to work for cerberus. shepard choices were limited and since he is suppose to be a hero who wants to stop the reapers and their minions. working with cerberus was his only option.
They gave him a ship, a crew, fundings and edi. he needed all three to defeat the collectors and only cerberus had them.

First mistake they made: Killing Shepard and bringing him back. Its idiotic. It was ultimately just a device to railroad him into Cerberus, give him a new vessel and have his old crew gone, and a great marketing gimmick. Not to mention all the problems that arose from bringing back the dead. And Shepard doestn even care.

I can still tell you as a middle part of the trilogy, no matter how good the game seemed, it was handled poorly. Its like 12 misc smaller stories around a skeleton of a plot that ultimately accomplishes very little if not nil.

And instead of sidemissions which were exploring the main plot and COLLECTORS, we had 3 total encounters with them, most of the time we were just shooting random mercs or doing something stupid like putting batteries into a mech or programming a solar shield up... ME2 sidemissions sucked.

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 10:04 .

[Erez Kristal]

i understand you didnt like it. its very hard to find something in the world who has a 100% positive reception. this is why we have two way to scrutinize something.
We have the general public likeness meter.
And we have the does it make sense meter.

If you cant come up with a reason why something doesnt make sense. then for all we know, it does make sense.
I offered many alternatives to what could have happened instead of the beginning we recieved for me3.
You yet found a solution to what shepard could have down differently in order to save the human colonies from the collectors or reapers in me2.

[Wolfva2]

I wouldn't say the Council were morons. I'd say they were politicians.
<blink><blink>
<blink>

Wait a second...


Politicians have a different mindset then normal people. They're concerned with acquiring political power. If they're in a burning building, their first thought is, "How will this help my re-election?" Whereas normal people's first thought is, "CRAP! How do I get out!!!"

[CaptainCommander]

Pretty much when they told us about EC. It came across as "Hey we heard you don't like the ending for these reason, so we just gonna add some extra footage and not actually change what is fundamentally wrong with it."
It was like Bioware just went "Cool Story Bro. Now sod off!"

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

i understand you didnt like it. its very hard to find something in the world who has a 100% positive reception. this is why we have two way to scrutinize something.
We have the general public likeness meter.
And we have the does it make sense meter.

If you cant come up with a reason why something doesnt make sense. then for all we know, it does make sense.
I offered many alternatives to what could have happened instead of the beginning we recieved for me3.
You yet found a solution to what shepard could have down differently in order to save the human colonies from the collectors or reapers in me2.

Like I said, if you wanna fix ME3, start with ME2. Make the trilogy more coherent. Otherwise you still have a somewhat broken of a bridge. ME3 was a botched effort on many levels in the beginning and the end, but ME2 wasnt that much better. They had no idea what they were doing or where they were going. It shows.

And fan reviews... I can tell you that ME2 is more the case of a "give them a happy ending and they ignore the rest". ME3 would have been this also, if it had an ending that satisfied. People have actually confessed this here with polls, they think the rest of the game is stellar, if only those final 5 minutes were good..

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 10:18 .

[Erez Kristal]

Armass81 wrote...

erezike wrote...

i understand you didnt like it. its very hard to find something in the world who has a 100% positive reception. this is why we have two way to scrutinize something.
We have the general public likeness meter.
And we have the does it make sense meter.

If you cant come up with a reason why something doesnt make sense. then for all we know, it does make sense.
I offered many alternatives to what could have happened instead of the beginning we recieved for me3.
You yet found a solution to what shepard could have down differently in order to save the human colonies from the collectors or reapers in me2.

Like I said, if you wanna fix ME3, start with ME2. Make the trilogy more coherent. Otherwise you still have a somewhat broken of a bridge. ME3 was a botched effort on many levels in the beginning and the end, but ME2 wasnt that much better. They had no idea what they were doing or where they were going. It shows.

In what way do you think me2 was broken?  i can accept that mass effect 2 avoided the big issues.
But the plot wasnt broken in me2

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

erezike wrote...

i understand you didnt like it. its very hard to find something in the world who has a 100% positive reception. this is why we have two way to scrutinize something.
We have the general public likeness meter.
And we have the does it make sense meter.

If you cant come up with a reason why something doesnt make sense. then for all we know, it does make sense.
I offered many alternatives to what could have happened instead of the beginning we recieved for me3.
You yet found a solution to what shepard could have down differently in order to save the human colonies from the collectors or reapers in me2.

Like I said, if you wanna fix ME3, start with ME2. Make the trilogy more coherent. Otherwise you still have a somewhat broken of a bridge. ME3 was a botched effort on many levels in the beginning and the end, but ME2 wasnt that much better. They had no idea what they were doing or where they were going. It shows.

In what way do you think me2 was broken?  i can accept that mass effect 2 avoided the big issues.
But the plot wasnt broken in me2

ME2 is a great game, but it would have worked better as a spinoff than as the middle part of the trilogy.

Check out Smudboys videos on it. It goes into detail. Also his responses to one defender.

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 10:23 .

[Erez Kristal]

Armass81 wrote...

[
ME2 is a great game, but it would have worked better as a spinoff than the middle part of the trilogy.

Check out Smudboys videos on it. It goes into detail. Also his responses to one defender.

Sending me off to do fish the answer is someone elses debate isnt how this is going to work.
you need to debate for yourself on this one  you can use his arguements though.

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 10:23 .

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

[
ME2 is a great game, but it would have worked better as a spinoff than the middle part of the trilogy.

Check out Smudboys videos on it. It goes into detail. Also his responses to one defender.

Sending me off to do fish the answer is someone elses debate isnt how this is going to work.
you need to debate for yourself on this one  you can use his arguements though.

I dont have time to hang around these forums all day writing a wall iof text, I have a life, Just check out his videos, he can explain it to you. He can be a condescending ******, but his actually right on this. More or less.

http://www.youtube.com/user/smudboy

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 10:27 .

[Erez Kristal]

Armass81 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

[
ME2 is a great game, but it would have worked better as a spinoff than the middle part of the trilogy.

Check out Smudboys videos on it. It goes into detail. Also his responses to one defender.

Sending me off to do fish the answer is someone elses debate isnt how this is going to work.
you need to debate for yourself on this one  you can use his arguements though.

I dont have time to hang around these forums all day writing a wall iof text, I have a life, Just check out his videos, he can explain it to you. He can be a condescending ******, but his actually right on this. More or less.

http://www.youtube.com/user/smudboy

 i dont have time to watch vids all day.
i will pass this one up.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 10:29 .

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

[
ME2 is a great game, but it would have worked better as a spinoff than the middle part of the trilogy.

Check out Smudboys videos on it. It goes into detail. Also his responses to one defender.

Sending me off to do fish the answer is someone elses debate isnt how this is going to work.
you need to debate for yourself on this one  you can use his arguements though.

I dont have time to hang around these forums all day writing a wall iof text, I have a life, Just check out his videos, he can explain it to you. He can be a condescending ******, but his actually right on this. More or less.

http://www.youtube.com/user/smudboy

 i dont have time to watch vids all day.
i will pass this one up.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

Well then its the end of the road for this... "give them a satisfying ending and they forget the rest"

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 10:38 .

[ioannisdenton]

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

[
ME2 is a great game, but it would have worked better as a spinoff than the middle part of the trilogy.

Check out Smudboys videos on it. It goes into detail. Also his responses to one defender.

Sending me off to do fish the answer is someone elses debate isnt how this is going to work.
you need to debate for yourself on this one  you can use his arguements though.

smudboy? really? this guy puts out the lamest arguments. He nitpicks everything. I bet this guy hasn't enjoyed anything in any game. You have to put your defences down in order to enjoy a game, watch a movie or even listen to music.
Hell if i want i can find same melodies,riffs or chord progressions with the same timing in songs but that would be disastrous.

[Armass81]

ioannisdenton wrote...

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

[
ME2 is a great game, but it would have worked better as a spinoff than the middle part of the trilogy.

Check out Smudboys videos on it. It goes into detail. Also his responses to one defender.

Sending me off to do fish the answer is someone elses debate isnt how this is going to work.
you need to debate for yourself on this one  you can use his arguements though.

smudboy? really? this guy puts out the lamest arguments. He nitpicks everything. I bet this guy hasn't enjoyed anything in any game. You have to put your defences down in order to enjoy a game, watch a movie or even listen to music.
Hell if i want i can find same melodies,riffs or chord progressions with the same timing in songs but that would be disastrous.

Youre right. He does, but theres still points in his analysis. ME2 works better as a stand alone story.

They cant just come up with this sudden idea of "hey guys i have great idea, lets make the next ME game about 12 people we pick up like the dirty dozen and they go on this suicide mission where they can all die" when its the middle part of the trilogy. But then again if you have no direction to go to, these things happen. The suicide mission part might have worked with more development time and careful planning, if the character missions were better balanced with the overall plot and the collector threat, plus searching for a way of defeating the reapers. But it all ends up playing rather poorly. You have 12 decent little plots wrapped around a husk of a story, that ultimately goes nowhere. Unbalanced mess. Plus wasting of some greater character potentials, like Legion.

Then you have these story stupidities. So the collectors plan on attacking earth? With what? Ships that a frigate can blow up?

Not to mention when you have a sequel coming, where fans probably will want most of these new characters back after bonding with them. Uh OH.... I think we messed up guys.

Writers themselves actually admitted that in hindsight the suicide mission was a rather bad idea.

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 11:10 .

[Wolfva2]

Ok, you want to know how to fix ME2? First, do whatever that guy says. Because only his opinions count. Disregard everyone else's opinions because they don't matter. Especially those...those...fanbooiissss....who actually claim to like the game. See, they don't REALLY like the game, they hate it just like EVERY. SINGLE. OTHER person in the entire universe does. But they're just trolls so they SAY they like the game. Just disregard them; they don't matter. Then, after you've done whatever it is he says to do the game will be perfect and glorious! Everyone will love it just as much as everyone currently hates it.

I'm being sarcastic; sometimes you have to point that out I've noticed. See, the problem here is we're dealing with personal likes and dislikes. What will fix the game, for some, will ruin it for others.

Bottom line: did you like the game? If yes, then good. Keep buying them. If you didn't like the game, then don't buy the next ones; you'll probably hate them as well.

[Erez Kristal]

Armass81 wrote...


Youre right. He does, but theres still points in his analysis. ME2 works better as a stand alone story.

They cant just come up with this sudden idea of "hey guys i have great idea, lets make the next ME game about 12 people we pick up like the dirty dozen and they go on this suicide mission where they can all die" when its the middle part of the trilogy. But then again if you have no direction to go to, these things happen. The suicide mission part might have worked with more development time if the character missions were better balanced with the overall plot and the collector threat, plus searching for a way of defeating the reapers. But it all plays out so poorly.

Not to mention where you have a sequal coming, where fans porabbaly will want most of these new characters back after bonding with them. Uh OH.... we messed up guys.

Writers themselves actually admitted that in hindsight the suicide mission was a rather bad idea.

once again your main problem with the second episode is that you feel that it avoided the first episode,
Which doesnt have to be a bad thing. mass effect 2 developed the universe so you would care more for it, it helped shepard get familar with more parts in the galaxy, it established shepard as a more powerful character who has manaaged once again beating the odds. shepard has gotten his hands on more resources that will later on help him defeat the reapers.

It was a season in a series that was mostly fixed on exploration in the mass effect 2 universe whcih is why it was so popular in the first place.

Unless you have disagreements with why shepard did certian actions in the game instead of others. then i see no point in discussing it. it sounds that you just didnt like the game. which is alright.

As for my criticism as to why shepard was on earth in the first place. the only answer i recieved was that you thought turning in was the right choice at the time. while for my shepard it clearly wasnt.

Even if he was captured its just as worse because you arent able to play through it, and it feels like a cheap trick that the guy and his group who managed to defeat the collectors and get out of many close situations was so easily captured. i just dont buy it.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think what Robo is saying is that Bioware has to write a story that is valid for all playthroughs. Therefore they have to account for all the variables. Arrival always happens, regardless of the Shepard. The only difference is whether or not Shepard does it, or the Marines do it.

If Shepard didn't do Arrival, it's not that much of a stretch that Shepard would eventually need to be 'officially' cleared for working with a terrorist group, an 'avowed enemy of the Council'.

These things are held constant in for all Shepard, but other stuff (i.e. status of Geth and Quarians) is not. Besides, it'd be pretty stupid for Shepard too resolve that dilemma off-screen.

NO! --- Shepard got her Spectre status reinstated in the beginning of ME2 and approval to work with Cerberus for the purpose of taking out the Collectors. It was already cleared. -- see? This could have happened. Y U Arrest me? I am a Spectre! U have No authority! I want my lawyer!

And yes, like I said, Arrival happens. It's a matter of who does it. This is why I said for the sake of simplicity they should have just hand waved it. They decided to cut the inquest because not everyone did Arrival. And if one had their spectre status reinstated then working with Cerberus was sanctioned, and if they didn't do Arrival, why would they have an inquest.

The problem is that Shepard got thrown in Lockup anyway, for nothing in some cases, and that made no sense at all. See my other post pretty close to this one.

But not every Shepard gets reinstated as a Spectre, so you have to account for those players. You can't make two entirely seperate openings. And regardless of Spectre status, Shepard actually is still beholden to the Council. Udina and/or Anderson could call in Shepard and Shepard would have no choice but to come in.

Yes I agree, it certainly makes less sense for the Shepards that did get locked up that didn't do Arrival. But there are plenty of other reasons for bringing Shepard in; advice on the Reaper threat, reports on the collectors, public severing of his Cerberus ties, etc.

Ultimately there is no perfect solution though.

Heh. This reminds me of the issue we had with the ME2 cast coming into ME3, and all the handwringing and nashing of teeth and such that accompanied it when people realized that, by making every single companion of ME2 killable, ME2 neutered their potential importance to the plot of ME3 and made it less likely for any of them to be squadmates. The only two who ultimately did return as squaddies, Tali and Garrus, not only had stronger/hisotric-continuity claims to being back on the team, but were effectively narrative non-factors in terms of driving the story. Garrus drove no plotline at all, only a redundant exposition device, while Tali could be substituted in all but the very final piece of the Rannoch arc by the rest of the admirals.

Which is sensible, and was predictable. A plot has to be able to continue whether the optional character are present or not, and making a companion survival optional means that all the plots have to be able to progress without them. And so Mordin can be replaced by Paddok, Jack's entire mission works just as well if not better with just the students, and the difference of the Grunt mission is that a supersoldier doesn't live after a near-fatal encounter.

And let's not even get started on the Cerberus supblot, when it's key potential companion factors (Miranda and Jacob) can't be relied upon to drive it. Miranda fans were pissed.

[Armass81]

erezike wrote...

Armass81 wrote...


Youre right. He does, but theres still points in his analysis. ME2 works better as a stand alone story.

They cant just come up with this sudden idea of "hey guys i have great idea, lets make the next ME game about 12 people we pick up like the dirty dozen and they go on this suicide mission where they can all die" when its the middle part of the trilogy. But then again if you have no direction to go to, these things happen. The suicide mission part might have worked with more development time if the character missions were better balanced with the overall plot and the collector threat, plus searching for a way of defeating the reapers. But it all plays out so poorly.

Not to mention where you have a sequal coming, where fans porabbaly will want most of these new characters back after bonding with them. Uh OH.... we messed up guys.

Writers themselves actually admitted that in hindsight the suicide mission was a rather bad idea.

once again your main problem with the second episode is that you feel that it avoided the first episode,
Which doesnt have to be a bad thing. mass effect 2 developed the universe so you would care more for it, it helped shepard get familar with more parts in the galaxy, it established shepard as a more powerful character who has manaaged once again beating the odds. shepard has gotten his hands on more resources that will later on help him defeat the reapers.

It was a season in a series that was mostly fixed on exploration in the mass effect 2 universe whcih is why it was so popular in the first place.

Unless you have disagreements with why shepard did certian actions in the game instead of others. then i see no point in discussing it. it sounds that you just didnt like the game. which is alright.

As for my criticism as to why shepard was on earth in the first place. the only answer i recieved was that you thought turning in was the right choice at the time. while for my shepard it clearly wasnt.

Even if he was captured its just as worse because you arent able to play through it, and it feels like a cheap trick that the guy and his group who managed to defeat the collectors and get out of many close situations was so easily captured. i just dont buy it.

I like ME2 as a game, I just dont like it as a story thats the middle part of the trilogy, since it does many things wrong. It could have been a little spinoff game while waiting for the true ME2 to start, called Mass Effect: Vengeance or something. I personally wouldnt have minded to see Shepard in 4 games... and with more development time.

I never said I liked the way ME3 begun, I said they botched it on many levels. Shepard sitting in his cell for 6 months not doing anything while waiting for the reapers arrive was one of the stupidest things ive seen. It made arrival seem pointless.

Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 11:21 .

[Erez Kristal]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Heh. This reminds me of the issue we had with the ME2 cast coming into ME3, and all the handwringing and nashing of teeth and such that accompanied it when people realized that, by making every single companion of ME2 killable, ME2 neutered their potential importance to the plot of ME3 and made it less likely for any of them to be squadmates. The only two who ultimately did return as squaddies, Tali and Garrus, not only had stronger/hisotric-continuity claims to being back on the team, but were effectively narrative non-factors in terms of driving the story. Garrus drove no plotline at all, only a redundant exposition device, while Tali could be substituted in all but the very final piece of the Rannoch arc by the rest of the admirals.

Which is sensible, and was predictable. A plot has to be able to continue whether the optional character are present or not, and making a companion survival optional means that all the plots have to be able to progress without them. And so Mordin can be replaced by Paddok, Jack's entire mission works just as well if not better with just the students, and the difference of the Grunt mission is that a supersoldier doesn't live after a near-fatal encounter.

And let's not even get started on the Cerberus supblot, when it's key potential companion factors (Miranda and Jacob) can't be relied upon to drive it. Miranda fans were pissed.

The problem with team mates is that it wasnt so much as players decisions as much as it was players performances
Because it wasnt a decision such to save or not the save the council and rachni. it was a decision in the same weight as the collector base or even the virmire survivor where you had to choose one over the other.

In this case it was reasonable to canon all of them instead of handwaving the fare. deciding on canon would have been more reasonsable in a situation where all the decisions were watered down.
Which comes down to quality over quanity.

[Bourne Endeavor]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

To many it is, to many it is not. Go and try to do justice for both groups. You can't. People should realise and face it already: This is how fiction and art in general work (it doesn't matter what you consider art or not in this regard, since that's not the point here): sometimes you just don't get what you expect or consider good, though it does not mean that it is not good for someone else. There's no objective good or bad here. For instance I enjoy the ending of the game and the 3rd game very much, many hate it. Others praise the 2nd game to the heavens, while I think it is overrated as hell, and I find it the weakest of the 3 games. So, different tastes and preferences I guess, but there's nothing objective about it. I have 3 friends who play and like ME. Three of us like the ending, one of us doesn't. Does this mean that the ending is objectively good or that the majority likes it? Do the math yourself (I a help a bit though: no, it does not). 

Objectivity can be deduced based on our understanding and use of proper literacy tools. Popularity does not make legitimate criticism any less palatable, otherwise Twilight should be regarded as a masterpiece. If the story cannot hold up scrutiny, then the writers did a poor job executing their idea. Introducing the primary antagonist in the span twenty minutes with no prior exposition, all whilst reducing our perceived threat to little more than puppets to the puppeteer weakened the series as a whole. The player is then subjected to intangible nonsense from this new character and forced to comply to its whims should they desire any meaningful conclusion. No explanation is offered; not any plausible, nor does our choice(s) - those made throughout the series or in this final moment, have any real relevance.

I can and shall call Mass Effect 3's ending objectively poorly written based on the above. In fact, I call into question the story itself to a lesser extent. You are welcome to enjoy it, but that does not allow it to ascend criticism.

And for the record. Mass Effect 2 is overrated; it's main plot is terribly executed with a dependency on characters behaving either irrational or downright incompetent for the story to play out, in particular Harbinger. I still enjoy the game for what it is without disregarding or defending its obvious flaws.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 26 juin 2013 - 11:53 .

[Erez Kristal]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


And for the record. Mass Effect 2 is overrated; it's main plot is terribly executed with a dependency on characters behaving either irrational or downright incompetent for the story to play out, in particular Harbinger. I still enjoy the game for what it is without disregarding or defending its obvious flaws.

what sort of irrational or incompetent behaviour do you have problems with in me2? 
Im sure i can explain everything, and would humbly accept it if i am proven wrong 


I find that its always easier to explain other characters motives than to explain shepard motives.
because shepard is controlled by the players and will see things differently from one player to the other.
However every action the play could do would only benefit him so far. there are only a few ways he can defeat the reapers and collectors which is why the player is limited if he wishes to achieve these goals.

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 12:22 .

[angol fear]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

To many it is, to many it is not. Go and try to do justice for both groups. You can't. People should realise and face it already: This is how fiction and art in general work (it doesn't matter what you consider art or not in this regard, since that's not the point here): sometimes you just don't get what you expect or consider good, though it does not mean that it is not good for someone else. There's no objective good or bad here. For instance I enjoy the ending of the game and the 3rd game very much, many hate it. Others praise the 2nd game to the heavens, while I think it is overrated as hell, and I find it the weakest of the 3 games. So, different tastes and preferences I guess, but there's nothing objective about it. I have 3 friends who play and like ME. Three of us like the ending, one of us doesn't. Does this mean that the ending is objectively good or that the majority likes it? Do the math yourself (I a help a bit though: no, it does not). 

Objectivity can be deduced based on our understanding and use of proper literacy tools. Popularity does not make legitimate criticism any less palatable, otherwise Twilight should be regarded as a masterpiece. If the story cannot hold up scrutiny, then the writers did a poor job executing their idea. Introducing the primary antagonist in the span twenty minutes with no prior exposition, all whilst reducing our perceived threat to little more than puppets to the puppeteer weakened the series as a whole. The player is then subjected to intangible nonsense from this new character and forced to comply to its whims should they desire any meaningful conclusion. No explanation is offered; not any plausible, nor does our choice(s) - those made throughout the series or in this final moment, have any real relevance.

I can and shall call Mass Effect 3's ending objectively poorly written based on the above. In fact, I call into question the story itself to a lesser extent. You are welcome to enjoy it, but that does not allow it to ascend criticism.

And for the record. Mass Effect 2 is overrated; it's main plot is terribly executed with a dependency on characters behaving either irrational or downright incompetent for the story to play out, in particular Harbinger. I still enjoy the game for what it is without disregarding or defending its obvious flaws.

No, you can't say that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is "objectively poorly written" because you base your objectivity on your expectations. There is no analysis of the writing in what you say, you only give your feeling and your disappointment. So no, you're not objective.

[Erez Kristal]

angol fear wrote...


No, you can't say that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is "objectively poorly written" because you base your objectivity on your expectations. There is no analysis of the writing in what you say, you only give your feeling and your disappointment. So no, you're not objective.

it has been discussed and decided throughout this thread :-) 
and many others.
http://social.biowar...ndex/13163609/1

When something breaks immersion over countless time beacause of too many plots holes, it is badly written.
You can accept plot holes in a story but only to a limit. there comes a point where its all too much.
When you are playing with probability too much.
When dues-ex feels cheap.

Take scary movie for example. it will nitpick on badly written moments in other films because they are badly written.