Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
Strawman. He is asking for a comparison/contrast of the methods of interpreting scenes in a VG vs. TV, whereas you are comparing the time investments and costs of the two. Personal investment should not affect the interpretation of a scene, particularly a cutscene, which is very similar to a scene in more passive media.
crimzontearz wrote...
that is an unfair statement within the context of the lovely troll statement we got at last year's comicon don't you think, especially if one does not have any other inside infoEterna5 wrote...
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Meaning that it fails to give you emotional satisfaction even though you intellectually know that Shepard is alive at the end?
Mass Effect was meant ot be entertainment, not a homework assignment.<_<
poor Iakus. It must have taken oodles of your brain power to understand that a sharp intake of breath implies life.
yet THAT is exactly what dusty is impliyingLeonardo the Magnificent wrote...
Renmiri1 wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Different how? ...
Not that that's on you, but is there a workable theory kicking around about how VG interpretation and TV interpretation are different and should be different?
Cracks knuckles... How is TV Movie different than VG ?
Cost:
TV: Free (comes with your TV license or your subscription to a cable company but the movie itself is a fraction of the cost)
VG: $60+
Time invested (time spent getting to end):
TV: 2-3 hours watching it
VG: 100+ hours playing it
Waiting time between chapters:
TV: 1 week to 8 months (on 90% of the movies / series episode)
VG: 1 year to 5 years
Do I have to continue or have you realized you are comparing falling from a bike with falling from a plane ?
VG cost is 3,000% or more than TV movies cost to the viewer. Time invested - time spent getting to see the movie end - in tv is less than 3% the time invested on a video game. Time spent waiting for the movie and a game is a bit more on the same scale but video games STILL demands 5 x more waiting, at least!
You don't like a movie you just lost 2 hours, you don't like a game you lost 100+ hours, $60 and 1-2 years of anticipation.
Is that so hard to understand ?
No it is not, even Bioware understood it.
http://www.shacknews...into-our-futureBioWare's Dusty Everman (pointed out) that it wasn't just character closure, but the tone of the ending that annoyed some players. "I've learned that a bitter-sweet ending is much easier to watch in a movie, than experience in a long RPG where the player is very invested in the protagonist," he said
Strawman. He is asking for a comparison/contrast of the methods of interpreting scenes in a VG vs. TV, whereas you are comparing the time investments and costs of the two. Personal investment should not affect the interpretation of a scene, particularly a cutscene, which is very similar to a scene in more passive media.
crimzontearz wrote...
my rebuke was not about your contradiction of his statement (with which I agree) but about your dismissive attitude as per how much the backlash costed to Bioware
imagine someone working as a weighloss consultant and cracking a teasing fat joke to an already less than happy customer.....how exactly do you think that would go down?Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
that is an unfair statement within the context of the lovely troll statement we got at last year's comicon don't you think, especially if one does not have any other inside infoEterna5 wrote...
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Meaning that it fails to give you emotional satisfaction even though you intellectually know that Shepard is alive at the end?
Mass Effect was meant ot be entertainment, not a homework assignment.<_<
poor Iakus. It must have taken oodles of your brain power to understand that a sharp intake of breath implies life.
The real question here is, why would you take a troll statement seriously? He was quite obviously teasing.
crimzontearz wrote...
imagine someone working as a weighloss consultant and cracking a teasing fat joke to an already less than happy customer.....how exactly do you think that would go down?Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
that is an unfair statement within the context of the lovely troll statement we got at last year's comicon don't you think, especially if one does not have any other inside infoEterna5 wrote...
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Meaning that it fails to give you emotional satisfaction even though you intellectually know that Shepard is alive at the end?
Mass Effect was meant ot be entertainment, not a homework assignment.<_<
poor Iakus. It must have taken oodles of your brain power to understand that a sharp intake of breath implies life.
The real question here is, why would you take a troll statement seriously? He was quite obviously teasing.
I disagree with the pettiness especially in some aspects of it.Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
my rebuke was not about your contradiction of his statement (with which I agree) but about your dismissive attitude as per how much the backlash costed to Bioware
I called it petty. It was petty. I never dismissed it.
Modifié par Leonardo the Magnificent, 31 août 2013 - 04:33 .
crimzontearz wrote...
yet THAT is exactly what dusty is impliyingLeonardo the Magnificent wrote...
Renmiri1 wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Different how? ...
Not that that's on you, but is there a workable theory kicking around about how VG interpretation and TV interpretation are different and should be different?
Cracks knuckles... How is TV Movie different than VG ?
Cost:
TV: Free (comes with your TV license or your subscription to a cable company but the movie itself is a fraction of the cost)
VG: $60+
Time invested (time spent getting to end):
TV: 2-3 hours watching it
VG: 100+ hours playing it
Waiting time between chapters:
TV: 1 week to 8 months (on 90% of the movies / series episode)
VG: 1 year to 5 years
Do I have to continue or have you realized you are comparing falling from a bike with falling from a plane ?
VG cost is 3,000% or more than TV movies cost to the viewer. Time invested - time spent getting to see the movie end - in tv is less than 3% the time invested on a video game. Time spent waiting for the movie and a game is a bit more on the same scale but video games STILL demands 5 x more waiting, at least!
You don't like a movie you just lost 2 hours, you don't like a game you lost 100+ hours, $60 and 1-2 years of anticipation.
Is that so hard to understand ?
No it is not, even Bioware understood it.
http://www.shacknews...into-our-futureBioWare's Dusty Everman (pointed out) that it wasn't just character closure, but the tone of the ending that annoyed some players. "I've learned that a bitter-sweet ending is much easier to watch in a movie, than experience in a long RPG where the player is very invested in the protagonist," he said
Strawman. He is asking for a comparison/contrast of the methods of interpreting scenes in a VG vs. TV, whereas you are comparing the time investments and costs of the two. Personal investment should not affect the interpretation of a scene, particularly a cutscene, which is very similar to a scene in more passive media.
Modifié par Leonardo the Magnificent, 31 août 2013 - 04:35 .
crimzontearz wrote...
I disagree with the pettiness especially in some aspects of it.Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
my rebuke was not about your contradiction of his statement (with which I agree) but about your dismissive attitude as per how much the backlash costed to Bioware
I called it petty. It was petty. I never dismissed it.
And honestly, if DAI was headed in a similar direction he would be right in saying Bioware, after ME3 would definitely course correct (now I doubt that is what the delay is for but you get the idea)
I have a project lead's message saying so but that was utterly unprofessionalEterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
imagine someone working as a weighloss consultant and cracking a teasing fat joke to an already less than happy customer.....how exactly do you think that would go down?Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
that is an unfair statement within the context of the lovely troll statement we got at last year's comicon don't you think, especially if one does not have any other inside infoEterna5 wrote...
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Meaning that it fails to give you emotional satisfaction even though you intellectually know that Shepard is alive at the end?
Mass Effect was meant ot be entertainment, not a homework assignment.<_<
poor Iakus. It must have taken oodles of your brain power to understand that a sharp intake of breath implies life.
The real question here is, why would you take a troll statement seriously? He was quite obviously teasing.
I think it would be hilarious.
But seriously, you know how that scene was meant to be interpreted. It is not Shepard dying.
sure, it can, my comment was aimed to the ending and its toneEterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
I disagree with the pettiness especially in some aspects of it.Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
my rebuke was not about your contradiction of his statement (with which I agree) but about your dismissive attitude as per how much the backlash costed to Bioware
I called it petty. It was petty. I never dismissed it.
And honestly, if DAI was headed in a similar direction he would be right in saying Bioware, after ME3 would definitely course correct (now I doubt that is what the delay is for but you get the idea)
ME3 is fine up until the ending. If it had an Ewok Party most people would ignore its flaws like they did with the previous two games. DA:I can be like ME3 all it wants, it just needs to make you feel good at the end.
crimzontearz wrote...
sure, it can, my comment was aimed to the ending and its toneEterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
I disagree with the pettiness especially in some aspects of it.Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
my rebuke was not about your contradiction of his statement (with which I agree) but about your dismissive attitude as per how much the backlash costed to Bioware
I called it petty. It was petty. I never dismissed it.
And honestly, if DAI was headed in a similar direction he would be right in saying Bioware, after ME3 would definitely course correct (now I doubt that is what the delay is for but you get the idea)
ME3 is fine up until the ending. If it had an Ewok Party most people would ignore its flaws like they did with the previous two games. DA:I can be like ME3 all it wants, it just needs to make you feel good at the end.
right, torching the franchise and running is not a problem at all (which is basically what was done in the original ending)Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
yet THAT is exactly what dusty is impliyingLeonardo the Magnificent wrote...
Renmiri1 wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Different how? ...
Not that that's on you, but is there a workable theory kicking around about how VG interpretation and TV interpretation are different and should be different?
Cracks knuckles... How is TV Movie different than VG ?
Cost:
TV: Free (comes with your TV license or your subscription to a cable company but the movie itself is a fraction of the cost)
VG: $60+
Time invested (time spent getting to end):
TV: 2-3 hours watching it
VG: 100+ hours playing it
Waiting time between chapters:
TV: 1 week to 8 months (on 90% of the movies / series episode)
VG: 1 year to 5 years
Do I have to continue or have you realized you are comparing falling from a bike with falling from a plane ?
VG cost is 3,000% or more than TV movies cost to the viewer. Time invested - time spent getting to see the movie end - in tv is less than 3% the time invested on a video game. Time spent waiting for the movie and a game is a bit more on the same scale but video games STILL demands 5 x more waiting, at least!
You don't like a movie you just lost 2 hours, you don't like a game you lost 100+ hours, $60 and 1-2 years of anticipation.
Is that so hard to understand ?
No it is not, even Bioware understood it.
http://www.shacknews...into-our-futureBioWare's Dusty Everman (pointed out) that it wasn't just character closure, but the tone of the ending that annoyed some players. "I've learned that a bitter-sweet ending is much easier to watch in a movie, than experience in a long RPG where the player is very invested in the protagonist," he said
Strawman. He is asking for a comparison/contrast of the methods of interpreting scenes in a VG vs. TV, whereas you are comparing the time investments and costs of the two. Personal investment should not affect the interpretation of a scene, particularly a cutscene, which is very similar to a scene in more passive media.
No, it isn't. Dusty isn't talking about how someone interprets a scene. He's talking about how people reacted to the depressing feel of the ending. But if half of the people on these boards are to be believed, the generally grim tone of the endings isn't the problem.
hence why I said that I do not believe that is the reason of the delayEterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
sure, it can, my comment was aimed to the ending and its toneEterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
I disagree with the pettiness especially in some aspects of it.Eterna5 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
my rebuke was not about your contradiction of his statement (with which I agree) but about your dismissive attitude as per how much the backlash costed to Bioware
I called it petty. It was petty. I never dismissed it.
And honestly, if DAI was headed in a similar direction he would be right in saying Bioware, after ME3 would definitely course correct (now I doubt that is what the delay is for but you get the idea)
ME3 is fine up until the ending. If it had an Ewok Party most people would ignore its flaws like they did with the previous two games. DA:I can be like ME3 all it wants, it just needs to make you feel good at the end.
They wouldn't need an entire year to rewrite the ending.
crimzontearz wrote...
right, torching the franchise and running is not a problem at all (which is basically what was done in the original ending)Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
No, it isn't. Dusty isn't talking about how someone interprets a scene. He's talking about how people reacted to the depressing feel of the ending. But if half of the people on these boards are to be believed, the generally grim tone of the endings isn't the problem.
to many the interpretation of the scene changes the whole tone of the endings. Quite simple. The fact that Bioware threw in the extra troll and refused to confirm things publicly (coupled with the poor delivery) did not help...at allLeonardo the Magnificent wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
right, torching the franchise and running is not a problem at all (which is basically what was done in the original ending)Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
No, it isn't. Dusty isn't talking about how someone interprets a scene. He's talking about how people reacted to the depressing feel of the ending. But if half of the people on these boards are to be believed, the generally grim tone of the endings isn't the problem.
Stop changing the subject. This is about the interpretation of a scene, not about the mood and tone of the endings as a whole.
Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
It's the last scene of a blockbuster movie, after the hero has defeated the Big Bad at what appears to be the cost of his life. Pan to a body makred with the noticeable insignia the hero is always adorned with; the body inhales.
What does that indicate, and how would the interpretation of that scene differ in a videogame and why?
Modifié par iakus, 31 août 2013 - 05:08 .
Thus they didn't want to do the exact same thing and instead used different cinematic/editing way for the same "iakus wrote...
You know, like how ME1 did it.
( ;_; ............ wait he's actually survivred! 
" conclusion
Modifié par IsaacShep, 31 août 2013 - 05:09 .
IsaacShep wrote...
Thus they didn't want to do the exact same thing and instead used different cinematic/editing way for the same "iakus wrote...
You know, like how ME1 did it.
Modifié par iakus, 31 août 2013 - 05:09 .
No they didn't because ebveryone knew it was "Shep survives" ending. That was the purpouse of the scene, it fulfilled itiakus wrote...
And failed at it, yes
The way they did it in ME3 IS part of the trope loliakus wrote...
THer's a reason why tropes exist.
Modifié par IsaacShep, 31 août 2013 - 05:11 .
yes with the difference that the deliver of the breath scene was AWFUL, that we knew that ME was the first of a trilogy hinging on commander Shepard (we were told so from the VERY beginning) and that no one came up after saying "oh no guys that could have been his last breath TROLOLOLOLOL"IsaacShep wrote...
Thus they didn't want to do the exact same thing and instead used different cinematic/editing way for the same "iakus wrote...
You know, like how ME1 did it.
Eterna5 wrote...
ME3 is fine up until the ending. If it had an Ewok Party most people would ignore its flaws like they did with the previous two games. DA:I can be like ME3 all it wants, it just needs to make you feel good at the end.
the fact that many question its interpretation and that is has to be seen under the light if author intention (which even gaidet says is meaningless) contradics your statementIsaacShep wrote...
No they didn't because ebveryone knew it was "Shep survives" ending. That was the purpouse of the scene, it fulfilled itiakus wrote...
And failed at it, yesThe way they did it in ME3 IS part of the trope loliakus wrote...
THer's a reason why tropes exist.
No. The only people who didn't "get it" are:crimzontearz wrote...
the fact that many question its interpretation and that is has to be seen under the light if author intention (which even gaidet says is meaningless) contradics your statement
people who know eaxctly what this scene is but pretend they don't to add to the list of "Bioware you failed atb yet another thing in execution of ending, clearly you must make completly new one, 100% happy this time thehe"
Retour en haut