234 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

dreamgazer wrote...

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, no, this csm guy is more related to Txgoldrush.

I just don't get it, do I?

You know Tx, no? 

[dreamgazer]

spirosz wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, no, this csm guy is more related to Txgoldrush.

I just don't get it, do I?

You know Tx, no? 

Yeah, he's the one who keeps telling everyone they just don't get it. 

[Sebby]

J. Reezy wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

What the hell is an "important game"? I know good ones, bad ones, not sure about important ones (edit: hmm.. well maybe those genre creating ones, like wolfenstein).

Mass Effect (and other games) owes its inferior combat mechanics to Gears of War so I'd definitely put Gears of War up there in the important games category. Gears has had a widespread influence on games since 2006. I struggle to find out what's so important about Mass Effect though. Not even dissing.

Yeah, important games are trend setters/big innovaters. Other such examples would be Street Fighter 2, Virtua Fighter, Wolfenstein/Doom, Final Fantasy 7, Devil May Cry, World of Warcraft,etc

Mass Effect is clearly not in that category.

[spirosz]

Let's see what Mass Effect has in it's pocket -

Interesting Characters? Sure, hundred of games have done that and depending on your taste, either better or worse.

Choices and Consequences - Original Fallout does this better and never advertised those as it's selling point. The Witcher 2 as a whole.

Ambition? I give them that, trilogy is a daunting task, especially with all the technical stuff they have to consider, so I respect them for willing to put in the effort and heart (Most of them, lolol).

If anything really stands out to me in relation to "importance" - it's the sound engineer team - those Reaper noises are iconic, especially in ME3, but otherwise - really depending on "x" game, you could say this for any title that thrives in that department.

I really don't see how gaming would be different if ME series wasn't created.

[dreamgazer]

Self-insert morality and relationships in a space-opera environment. That's it.

[spirosz]

I have to say that indie games in the last few years have been the best thing to happen to gaming. It's encouraging more people to go in these fields, become and stay passionate regardless of the budget or scope of the game - focus on staying unique in the world of copy and paste and creating wonderful games like Journey, LIMBO, Rain, The Swapper, just to name a few. 

Modifié par spirosz, 09 octobre 2013 - 04:21 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Without Tali's skills there's no recording of Saren, so Shepard's quest fails right at the beginning of ME1.

Shepard's quest fails if some lazy dude doesn't take a nap behind boxes on Eden Prime, so long as we're pointing out how contrived the ME plot has always been.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 octobre 2013 - 04:23 .

[spirosz]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Without Tali's skills there's no recording of Saren, so Shepard's quest fails right at the beginning of ME1.

Shepard's quest fails if some lazy dude doesn't take a nap behind boxes on Eden Prime, so long as we're pointing out how contrived the ME plot has always been.

Rofl.  

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Without Tali's skills there's no recording of Saren, so Shepard's quest fails right at the beginning of ME1.

Shepard's quest fails if some lazy dude doesn't take a nap behind boxes on Eden Prime, so long as we're pointing out how contrived the ME plot has always been.

It always amuses me to see people nitpick at some of the orchestrated storytelling in the later games of the series when it's just about as frequent in the game that got it all started. 

[Omega Torsk]

The ending is what it is. I can't change it.

I tend to either headcanon post-EC (with high EMS) Destroy or just headcanon that everything after Harby's blast was a hallucination in Shepard's head and let my imagination run wild from there...

[InvincibleHero]

Here's the problem as I see it people think they have a right to write their own ending simply because it is an rpg. If BW had made one ending that agreed with what they wanted then they would be satisfied. the fact they included 4 choices is lost in the shuffle. Some don't like any of them. I prefer destroy and could stomach control maybe in future playthrough with my renegon engineer. Refuse and synthesis are not something I will ever do but you know what I am glad BW included them for people that can appreciate it as an ending to their playthrough.

BW wrote endings that put their universe in a state they could use in games going forward. it is their property and their right. They are not the best endings but are adequate imo and cover a wide range of choice. People would have overlooked any of the flaws they now castigate the game if they got their happily ever after or their specific ending they wanted. Plotholes what plotholes I'm making babies with Tali (not my Sheps never romanced her). The catalyst oh yeah the hologram dude he was lame but hey the geth are still around and the reapers were defeated conventionally. I think I'll stop there.

[InvincibleHero]

The game fails at the council not asking hey uh Saren where'd you get the gigantic warship you're tooling around the galaxy in?

[Dubozz]

It's not deep. It's actually pretty simple. And it's not "the whole issue here". Ending sucks big time and bioware knows this.

[Mangalores]

InvincibleHero wrote...

... People would have overlooked any of the flaws they now castigate the game if they got their happily ever after or their specific ending they wanted. ....

I wouldn't. I'm totally okay with being as predjudiced and sadistic towards your characters as possible if it serves the story.

The endings are badly written. That's why they don't work. Any ending can work if it's well written. This means maintaining a consistent tone, this means not introducing jarring plot devices at last minute, this includes setting up the end beforehand, this includes not introducing self contradictory explanations that fail at logic 1x1, this includes not introducing pseudo science, this includes not introducing space magic that completely breaks with the established space magic. This includes giving characters a send off, good or bad.

I can live with Destroy (with the headcanon that the Catalyst is clearly crazy so we better do what we planned, not what it tells us) or Refuse (with the headcanon that the Catalyst is so insane that all choices are probably a trap anyway), I can't really live with the proposition of the Reapers / Catalyst changing their mind and suddenly suggesting alternative solutions which supposedly need Shepard when there is no actual explanation beside bonkers Messiah iconography to support it. They could have introduced Control or Synthesis on their own without outside incentive since it doesn't actually touch the established Reaper system. Even Destroy is sanctioned by the Catalyst out of the blue for no good reason like a kid throwing it toys away crying "That's it! I don't wanna play anymore!".

[Mangalores]

csm4267 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
Yeah, he's the one who keeps telling everyone they just don't get it. 

You don't get it because the ending is "deep". ...

It's not deep and completely breaks its own narration and tone because the Mass Effect stories aren't set up to work this way. You can't establish a space opera with set rules and mechanics, then throw everything away and declare it deep. It's just inconsistent and in terms of philosophical aspects mainly a shallow mess.

EDIT: The Matrix triology was closer to a pretty similar setup but also failed miserably with a  far more philosophical embedding (particularly the first movie is cluttered with references) and foreshadowing. You cannot spent hours on action schlock and then expect to have the framework in place to support a "deep" ending.

Evangelion has a deep ending but it spends its last two hours inside the main character's head to get away with it.

Modifié par Mangalores, 09 octobre 2013 - 07:54 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The ending is deep, and piled high.

[InvincibleHero]

Mangalores wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

... People would have overlooked any of the flaws they now castigate the game if they got their happily ever after or their specific ending they wanted. ....

I wouldn't. I'm totally okay with being as predjudiced and sadistic towards your characters as possible if it serves the story.

The endings are badly written. That's why they don't work. Any ending can work if it's well written. This means maintaining a consistent tone, this means not introducing jarring plot devices at last minute, this includes setting up the end beforehand, this includes not introducing self contradictory explanations that fail at logic 1x1, this includes not introducing pseudo science, this includes not introducing space magic that completely breaks with the established space magic. This includes giving characters a send off, good or bad.

I can live with Destroy (with the headcanon that the Catalyst is clearly crazy so we better do what we planned, not what it tells us) or Refuse (with the headcanon that the Catalyst is so insane that all choices are probably a trap anyway), I can't really live with the proposition of the Reapers / Catalyst changing their mind and suddenly suggesting alternative solutions which supposedly need Shepard when there is no actual explanation beside bonkers Messiah iconography to support it. They could have introduced Control or Synthesis on their own without outside incentive since it doesn't actually touch the established Reaper system. Even Destroy is sanctioned by the Catalyst out of the blue for no good reason like a kid throwing it toys away crying "That's it! I don't wanna play anymore!".

(I'm going to say he for the catalyst even though it is an it.) The options are what the crucible is capable of performing. The catalyst only facilitates those choices. Indeed he may be a slave to the crucible's programming much like the hacking of the protheans before. It is why he mentions destroy when no way would he logically ever do so. He can destroy the reapers on his own if he really had total control as he suggests. He tries to steer you towards his preferred solution of synthesis but that is as much as he can affect the outcome. When Shepard refuses it throws the ball back to the catalyst that decides the staus quo has worked so far and it is over quickly with the destruction of the crucible.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The ending is deep, and piled high.

There are a lot of flies going around it too. And it smells really bad.

Dammit SuperMac! You forgot to flush the toilet again!

[dreamgazer]

csm4267 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
Yeah, he's the one who keeps telling everyone they just don't get it. 

You don't get it because the ending is "deep". You don't get it because you're taking the ending at face value.

Sweetheart, two things: a) if you recognize the image I use for my avatar, which you should if you're going to preach about movies involving extensive interpretation, then you should know that I'm well within the audience type that would embrace such things; and you've never even had a conversation with me, so you have no idea what I get and don't get. 

Take your mindless droning elsewhere. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

Man I haven't seen this type of argument in a while. Fun fact, merely attempting to make an interpretive conclusion doesn't mean you can automatically make it work within the given context.

[Mangalores]

InvincibleHero wrote...
...
(I'm going to say he for the catalyst even though it is an it.) The options are what the crucible is capable of performing. The catalyst only facilitates those choices. Indeed he may be a slave to the crucible's programming much like the hacking of the protheans before. It is why he mentions destroy when no way would he logically ever do so. He can destroy the reapers on his own if he really had total control as he suggests. He tries to steer you towards his preferred solution of synthesis but that is as much as he can affect the outcome. When Shepard refuses it throws the ball back to the catalyst that decides the staus quo has worked so far and it is over quickly with the destruction of the crucible.

There is no indication in the game to suggest the Crucible is more than a big engine to do something (in contrast to a highly complex software someone has to understand to even write it) and there is no indication in the game that the Catalyst isn't in full control of the situation.

[spirosz]

dreamgazer wrote...

csm4267 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
Yeah, he's the one who keeps telling everyone they just don't get it. 

You don't get it because the ending is "deep". You don't get it because you're taking the ending at face value.

Sweetheart, two things: a) if you recognize the image I use for my avatar, which you should if you're going to preach about movies involving extensive interpretation, then you should know that I'm well within the audience type that would embrace such things; and you've never even had a conversation with me, so you have no idea what I get and don't get. 

Take your mindless droning elsewhere. 

[AlanC9]

Seboist wrote...
Yeah, important games are trend setters/big innovaters. Other such examples would be Street Fighter 2, Virtua Fighter, Wolfenstein/Doom, Final Fantasy 7, Devil May Cry, World of Warcraft,etc

Mass Effect is clearly not in that category.

Going way OT, but what was innovative about Devil May Cry?