865 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

LineHolder wrote...

The ME2 bashing on this forum seems to have two reasons, to me, anyway.

The anti-enders want to seem reasonable and avoid looking obstinate.

The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.

I've noticed this too. 

[Erez Kristal]

Couldnt agree more.
Lineholder you im putting up a team.
You should join us :-)

[Bourne Endeavor]

erezike wrote...

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.

Most predominate were Virmire Survivor's attitude on Horizon, delving into blatant stupidity just to create tense with Shepard. However, the most egregious was the entire abduction sequence that first has us install unknown Reaper tech into the Normandy, subsequently abandon the ship for an abrupt off-scene mission with no explanation whatsoever and Harbinger opting to abduct the crew instead of winning the game. Thanks to everyone's massive incompetence, the Normandy is rendered a sitting duck and the crew is stuck planet side (or in a shuttle). Had Harbinger simply destroyed the Normandy for a second time, he would have eliminated EDI, prevented any access to the Omega 4 Relay as the Reaper IFF would also be destroyed and could finish off the now stranded crew.

He quite literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Now I appreciate the cliche villain underestimating the protagonist and the writers attempting to set up dramatic tension, but the comedy of errors and stupidity from near everyone for this scene to transpire is really stretching liberty here.

Another less blatant example is boarding the Collector Ship. TIM's reasons for lying to you are utterly asinine. If "the Collectors could be tipped off in any number of ways," then why are we having a conversation and strategizing about ways to defeat them right now? Not to mention Shepard blindly follows along with this insultingly obvious trap and is later surprised it was one. And finally, Harbinger allowing EDI access to the Collector Ship's computers. Why not spring the trap before you provide the enemy with data that could ultimately lead to your downfall?

In addition, you could argue the Collector's plan as a whole was ridiculous and make no logical sense, but that is more plot specific criticism than character.

angol fear wrote...

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.

My expectations were only a coherent narrative that properly articulated its points, even were they ultimately cliche; a minimalistic effort in essence. So no, I was not expecting literacy gospel, just good storytelling. There plenty of analysis, I merely opted not to go into a tangent. Instead, I cited the basis; a nonsensical explanation or lack thereof, the introduction to a character that is a blatant Deus ex Machina in the last twenty minutes, Shepard's sudden deviance from character, the Crucible itself, etc. If you insist, I can go into further detail, but at this point it has been said near constant. The flaws should be known.

Why it is objectivity is because the basis for my criticism is not emotion, but through the use of literacy tools at our disposal.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 26 juin 2013 - 01:31 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

LineHolder wrote...

The ME2 bashing on this forum seems to have two reasons, to me, anyway.

The anti-enders want to seem reasonable and avoid looking obstinate.

The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.

While I can't deny that, as evident of what I just wrote above. I will say I love ME2 for what it is; a character-centric and episodic story based on their individual problems, which are far more interesting. My reason for criticising it is not to appear less obstinate, but to avoid bias.

[Erez Kristal]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Most predominate were Virmire Survivor's attitude on Horizon, delving into blatant stupidity just to create tense with Shepard .

First the VS were never too smart to begin with on me1.  ashley was always too suspicios and kaiden was always too much of a goody goody wrex was the brain in me1. the VS  heard the rumors of shepard coming back from the dead and working for the terrorist organization . how could they know its even shepard. the same face yes, but they dont know anything more than that. and now shepard shows just up when the collectors attack right after they almost got killed. they were shaken, their behaviour is understandable. it show they are human beings.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
. However, the most egregious was the entire abduction sequence that first has us install unknown Reaper tech into the Normandy, subsequently abandon the ship for an abrupt off-scene mission with no explanation whatsoever and Harbinger opting to abduct the crew instead of winning the game. Thanks to everyone's massive incompetence, the Normandy is rendered a sitting duck and the crew is stuck planet side (or in a shuttle). Had Harbinger simply destroyed the Normandy for a second time, he would have eliminated EDI, prevented any access to the Omega 4 Relay as the Reaper IFF would also be destroyed and could finish off the now stranded crew. He quite literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. 

Going through the omega 4 relay means taking risks, installing the reaper tech was the only way. edi was made part reaper tech and has already proven itf value, it was a risky game but sometimes you cant play it safe. you have to take risks. the timing for leaving the ship was problematic. my best guess is that they assumed this process to be of very low risk and were proven wrong. shepard wanted to make as much as possibile in due time and  decided to go off ship in order to complete another mission. it could also be the case that testing iff needed the normandy not to be in ftl speed which would further slow down shepard progress
.
Harby wanted shepard, becauase shepard was uniqe. this is why he didnt simply destroy the normandy, he expected to find shepard on the normandy. harbinger couldnt know that the normandy would be able to overcome the collectors hacking. he underestimated edi's capabilities.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Another less blatant example is boarding the Collector Ship. TIM's reasons for lying to you are utterly asinine. If "the Collectors could be tipped off in any number of ways," then why are we having a conversation and strategizing about ways to defeat them right now? Not to mention Shepard blindly follows along with this insultingly obvious trap and is later surprised it was one. And finally, Harbinger allowing EDI access to the Collector Ship's computers. Why not spring the trap before you provide the enemy with data that could ultimately lead to your downfall?  

 
I accept tim arguements, it was an obvious trap but maybe not to all players which is why it gives shep the chance to be mad about it.
Tim later talk strategy with you, because peraphes now after you have managed to overcome their computers you can also encrypt your transsmisions in a realiable manner.  And peraphes it is a risk he is willing to take. earlier it wouldnt have benefited him for shepard to know about the collectors. he could have only lose an advantage for informing shepard of the trap. now he has to inform shepard of his plans in order to advance their fight against the collectors. its not ideal but it all he has.

Harbinger allows Edi acess, in order to have easier hacking into the normandy and take control from it. if he wouldnt have enabled the connection he would a much harder time doing so. 

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
In addition, you could argue the Collector's plan as a whole was ridiculous and make no logical sense, but that is more plot specific criticism than character.

 

The reapers were gathering information the species, they were building their prototype in secret and preparing for their assault on the galaxy. the collectors premature harvesting was part of this plan.
It could have played a better role if mass effect 3 had a better following plot which is easily done.

But drew left for start wars and his plots were neglected in favor for macs movie.

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 01:55 .

[dreamgazer]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

LineHolder wrote...

The ME2 bashing on this forum seems to have two reasons, to me, anyway.

The anti-enders want to seem reasonable and avoid looking obstinate.

The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.

While I can't deny that, as evident of what I just wrote above. I will say I love ME2 for what it is; a character-centric and episodic story based on their individual problems, which are far more interesting. My reason for criticising it is not to appear less obstinate, but to avoid bias.

It's a good thing, as well as drawing attention to the flaws in ME1, too. Discussing the series' recurring issues doesn't absolve ME3 of its own failures, but the community should keep it in perspective before they glorify the others and shower the third with criticism.

All three games railroad, all three games have "space magic", and all three games have convenient plot fixes and contrivances; they all have their storytelling strengths and weaknesses. ME3 may be the weakest in terms of writing, but let's not pretend as if the series hasn't been guilty of some of the same things all along.

[Erez Kristal]

dreamgazer wrote...


All three games railroad, all three games have "space magic", and all three games have convenient plot fixes and contrivances; they all have their storytelling strengths and weaknesses. ME3 may be the weakest in terms of writing, but let's not pretend as if the series hasn't been guilty of some of the same things all along.

Its almost impossibile to create a perfect story. none of the mass effects were perfect. i dont know if there ever was a perfect story.

But when you look at it.
There are good stories and there are bad stories.
Mass effect 3 should blame the other mass effects for its faliures because it faliures are easily solved.
It was just a bad attempt at writing a story.

I could turn the blame for their lack of time, and change of writers.
The fact that they started making the game before they had a finished written plot contribues to the bad writing by a great deal.
Its just not the way to go.
Making changes after you have already completed making most of your game is impossibile.
And due to that reason we have enormous plot holes and citch lines

[CronoDragoon]

LineHolder wrote...

The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.

It's not about absolving ME3. ME2 is my favorite, but like any game it has its flaws. When people point out deficiencies in ME1/ME2, it's not absolve ME3 so much as question why such things are considered a big deal in ME3 when they weren't in ME1 or ME2.

If everyone just prefaced their comments with, "ME1 and ME2 aren't perfect but..." things would go a lot easier. In my opinion ME1 is easily the worst game in the series, but I still think it's a great game. Sometimes I'm drawn into criticizing it when I really don't want to, and that's unfortunate.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 26 juin 2013 - 02:19 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Why it is objectivity is because the basis for my criticism is not emotion, but through the use of literacy tools at our disposal.

That's absurd, pompous and narcissistic.  Also, "literacy" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Armass81]

CronoDragoon wrote...

LineHolder wrote...

The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.

It's not about absolving ME3. ME2 is my favorite, but like any game it has its flaws. When people point out deficiencies in ME1/ME2, it's not absolve ME3 so much as question why such things are considered a big deal in ME3 when they weren't in ME1 or ME2.

If everyone just prefaced their comments with, "ME1 and ME2 aren't perfect but..." things would go a lot easier. In my opinion ME1 is easily the worst game in the series, but I still think it's a great game. Sometimes I'm drawn into criticizing it when I really don't want to, and that's unfortunate.

Give them a happy ending and they forget the rest.

[Erez Kristal]

Armass81 wrote...

Give them a happy ending and they forget the rest.

I have given countless explanations to why me3 plots utterly fails.
I asked for equal criticism to be shown towards me2. 
While me3 is not defendable, me2 is.
Believe i would much rather to like m3 story and put this all behind me. but i cant, because it has a c movie plot.

Happy ending makes your heart warmer when a story ends, however i have read enough stories where the ending wasnt happy but the story was still exellent.
Its just has to be a good story, which me3 clearly isnt

[CronoDragoon]

erezike wrote...
While me3 is not defendable, me2 is.
Believe i would much rather to like m3 story and put this all behind me. but i cant, because it has a c movie plot.

They all have C movie plots. Perhaps ME1 is a C+.

And I don't really know how you defend ME2's plot considering what came before and after, unless you are simply going to handwave all the questionable events because the character-driven narratives were so good.

I do that; I could care less that ME2 doesn't fit in with the overall plot because I thought the overall plot always sucked, even in ME1. That doesn't mean those concerns don't exist however; it just means they don't bother me.

[AlanC9]

LineHolder wrote...


The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.

Perhaps, but pointing to deficiencies in the earlier games is useful if you're trying to point out the rank hypocrisy of accepting something in ME1 and ME2 while finding the same thing horrible when ME3 does it.  See, for instance, pretty much any post by chemiclord. Or CronoDragoon above.

But this really shouldn't be used on ME2 unless the topic is railroading. ME2's plot is internally consistent, and it doesn't render the Reaper plan any sillier than it already was. ME1 is a more target-rich environment.

(Well, one could question why anybody thinks that a commando team is the answer to the Collector threat in the first place. But that's one of those RPG things)

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 juin 2013 - 03:30 .

[StarcloudSWG]

 It became clear there was no hope for getting a good ending about three days after worldwide release, when Bioware started complaining about all the hate it was getting and defending their 'artistic vision', rather than agreeing that the ending was unfinished, unpolished, and poorly written.

[KaiserShep]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

LineHolder wrote...

The ME2 bashing on this forum seems to have two reasons, to me, anyway.

The anti-enders want to seem reasonable and avoid looking obstinate.

The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.

While I can't deny that, as evident of what I just wrote above. I will say I love ME2 for what it is; a character-centric and episodic story based on their individual problems, which are far more interesting. My reason for criticising it is not to appear less obstinate, but to avoid bias.

ME2 emphasizes so much on the character aspect that people are less inclined to care about the overall plot as much. The story could have been about anything, and it still would've been great because the best part of Mass Effect has always been the smaller stories and character development. This is something that I hope BioWare brings back for another Mass Effect game. We don't need some big bad that threatens the entire galaxy. Having strong characters and interesting, smaller scale stories to revolve around the main conflict is all that's really needed to be a perfectly satisfying game. 

As I've said in the past, people are more than willing to forgive quite a lot of flaws, if the game delivers things that satisfy players in other respects. The plot can be riddled with holes and some things might not make sense, but if the players can get attached to the characters, care about their story, and like the ending, they tend to let things slide. If Mass Effect 3 actually had a satisfying ending, it would be the same story. We'd still have everyone bellyaching over the plot holes and betrayal of characterization blah blah blah, but it would still be forgiven by a lot of people for the same reason many, including myself, forgive it in the other two games. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 26 juin 2013 - 03:37 .

[Erez Kristal]

CronoDragoon wrote...

erezike wrote...
While me3 is not defendable, me2 is.
Believe i would much rather to like m3 story and put this all behind me. but i cant, because it has a c movie plot.

They all have C movie plots. Perhaps ME1 is a C+.

And I don't really know how you defend ME2's plot considering what came before and after, unless you are simply going to handwave all the questionable events because the character-driven narratives were so good.

I do that; I could care less that ME2 doesn't fit in with the overall plot because I thought the overall plot always sucked, even in ME1. That doesn't mean those concerns don't exist however; it just means they don't bother me.

Me3 doesnt matter to me because it came after, its duty was to follow up with what it had at hand.
As for me1. i think it gave a good setting for the me2 game. it enabled it focus on other things becasue you have already had an established protagonist.

[CronoDragoon]

erezike wrote...
Me3 doesnt matter to me because it came after, its duty was to follow up with what it had at hand.

People who love ME1 but not ME2 usually say the same thing about ME2.

[Erez Kristal]

CronoDragoon wrote...

erezike wrote...
Me3 doesnt matter to me because it came after, its duty was to follow up with what it had at hand.

People who love ME1 but not ME2 usually say the same thing about ME2.

What does it means really?
Me 2 has nothing to be ashamed off. top user scores of 2010...
loved by most.

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...

As for me1. i think it gave a good setting for the me2 game. 

Well, that's the issue. You say it's a good setting; I see it as a badly flawed setting. Like I said upthread, ME1 dug the pit that ME3 fell into. ME2 avoided the pit by not moving forward.

[111987]

erezike wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

erezike wrote...
Me3 doesnt matter to me because it came after, its duty was to follow up with what it had at hand.

People who love ME1 but not ME2 usually say the same thing about ME2.

What does it means really?
Me 2 has nothing to be ashamed off. top user scores of 2010...
loved by most.

ME3 has over, what was the number, 75 perfect reviews?

[NeonFlux117]

erezike wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

erezike wrote...
Me3 doesnt matter to me because it came after, its duty was to follow up with what it had at hand.

People who love ME1 but not ME2 usually say the same thing about ME2.

What does it means really?
Me 2 has nothing to be ashamed off. top user scores of 2010...
loved by most.

yep, ME2 is an incredile achievement in gaming history. It won over 200 game of the year awards. Most since Half Life 2 

Yeah..... It's kinda good. 

I honestly think the Mass Effect series is the best trilogy in the history of gaming. And even tho it ended in a weak and uber lame way, it was still fantastic.

[Erez Kristal]

AlanC9 wrote...

erezike wrote...

As for me1. i think it gave a good setting for the me2 game. 

Well, that's the issue. You say it's a good setting; I see it as a badly flawed setting. Like I said upthread, ME1 dug the pit that ME3 fell into. ME2 avoided the pit by not moving forward.

Like i said before, i agree mass effect 2 avoided it.
But i think there are many ways they could have built a much better story on the foundations of me1+2

Without any dues-ex and reamining loyal to the old style of me1+me2
The only thng i would do that someplayers would like is to canon the survival of the entire team+ship on the sucide mission. not doing that creates complicated work material.

Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 03:52 .

[Clayless]

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a good thing, as well as drawing attention to the flaws in ME1, too. Discussing the series' recurring issues doesn't absolve ME3 of its own failures, but the community should keep it in perspective before they glorify the others and shower the third with criticism.

All three games railroad, all three games have "space magic", and all three games have convenient plot fixes and contrivances; they all have their storytelling strengths and weaknesses. ME3 may be the weakest in terms of writing, but let's not pretend as if the series hasn't been guilty of some of the same things all along.

This is what I don't understand about a lot of anti-enders on BSN. Here's a statement you've probably heard: "If I wasn't here then Bioware would think they did fantastic as all they'd hear is praise". I don't understand that at all. It's just another way of that person saying they don't criticise things they like, and they mindlessly criticise things they hate. I love Mass Effect 2, but that doesn't mean I don't point out it's flaws.

Now BSN has just boiled down to people calling things they hate "plot holes", despite it not being a plot hole.

[CronoDragoon]

erezike wrote...
What does it means really?
Me 2 has nothing to be ashamed off. top user scores of 2010...
loved by most.

It means that people are willing to overlook ME2's flaws because they love the game for other reasons. ME3 does not get this courtesy, probably because the ending left a bitter taste in people's mouths.