518 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

KaiserShep wrote...

Hey now, Victus ain't bad, and of course, the turian bartender that let Shepard destroy his/her insides with ryncol. That guy doesn't get in the way of a good party.

But Victus withholds critical intel about the mission he asks you to do. Intel that was on a "need to know" and you needed to know.

[AndyAK79]

Reorte wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Reorte wrote...

ME1: Just Virmire.

What about Destiny Ascencion choice?

I don't count that one as on the same scale. Bunch of faceless alliance mooks/as*hat politicians hardly compares to an entire form of existance.

 

Its amazing how easy it is to win an argument if you create special categories for anything that contradicts what you are saying.

Sounds better than lumping everything into the same category and over-generalising to a crazy degree as a result.

Come on! Letting one person die on Virmire counts as a sacrifice, but letting thousands of people die, including the galactic government, doesn't? And my suggesting that these are both fall very firmly under the catagory of sacrifice is "over-generalising to a crazy degree?"

You're re-defining the word sacrifice to exclude stuff that doesn't suit you; you're just re-writing the English language until your argument makes sense!

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 09:51 .

[AndyAK79]

iakus wrote...

RatThing wrote...

Like I said, it's the end of the trilogy. It was clear from the start that the sacrifice would be bigger this time. If you can't stomach that, too bad. But you can't blame them for being consistent in this point. "Hard choises" was supposed to be a main aspect of the game.

There's big, then there's too big.  And I can and will certainly blame them for that.  I came to play Mass Effect, not Saw: The RPG

Yes. Mass Effect has so much in common with Saw I can barely tell them apart. It is practically plagiarism.

You wan't big choices, but not too big? Slightly big choices? Choices that are quite large but, you know, not massive?

Most of your arguments revolve around the fact that the game wasn't exactly what you wanted it to be. Nobody was ever going to make that game, iakus.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 09:43 .

[AndyAK79]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Well personally im still at 1 playthrough so my memory of ME3 is shepard lying under some rubble an being told to further that mans legacy under the rubble with dlc.......No exactly closure no matter how many slides they wanna show.

You are confusing closure with comfort. The story strands are all tied up, the character arcs are developed to a logical conclusion and Shepard's story, his battle with the Reapers, is brought to a close. The fact it doesn't explain what happens afterwards (that 'happy' word is threatening to creep in here) isn't an issue of closure. The story told by the trilogy is 'closed'.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 09:50 .

[Kel Riever]

"If they're that surprised that people actually care about the characters, they should get out of the RPG business and just make shooters. Get out of story telling altogether and just make multiplayer games with no story at all. I mean who really cares, right? What's the point in playing a RPG if you don't care about your protagonist or any of the characters in the story, let alone the story?"

I found this quote from SJ to ring true. 

If BioWare can't do a decent job with the series as a story or an RPG vidoe game, then they should go full Call of Duty.  And people will decry them and call them turkeys.  But they are now anyway because they couldn't execute on the one strong poin they had.

Most every day I play Mass Effect multiplayer.  For all its faults, it well makes up for them, plus lets me pretend someone wasn't fool enough to end the RPG part of the series in such a massive flop.  I've saved money too, not having purchased Leviathan, Omega or Citadel, or whatever weapon pack thing came out in the meantime.  Never spent money on a microtransaction and never will.

And look!  Who is going to do the next ME series?  The crew who did their job as opposed to didn't do their job.  I'd rather see that though I won't be buying it because BioWare will never fix their ending.  Point is, however, you give your product to people who did their job as opposed to the ones who keep on telling you how you aren't supposed to want closure, or a good ending or be satisfied, because, well, that makes you 'unimaginative.'

Modifié par Kel Riever, 16 octobre 2013 - 03:02 .

[AndyAK79]

I think Mass Effect 3 has a great story, the characters are the best they've ever been and the people behind the game did an outstanding job. Bioware agree, which is why they are allowing them to continue the series. Ending issues notwithstanding, very few people would suggest ME3 is a shoddy product in the way you imply.

And nobody - literally nobody - is saying you aren't supposed to want closure or a good ending or to be satisfied.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 04:15 .

[Kel Riever]

AndyAK79 wrote...

I think Mass Effect 3 has a great story, the characters are the best they've ever been and the people behind the game did an outstanding job. Bioware agree, which is why they are allowing them to continue the series. Ending issues notwithstanding, very few people would suggest ME3 is a shoddy product in the way you imply.

And nobody - literally nobody - is saying you aren't supposed to want closure or a good ending or to be satisfied.

I'll just disagree with you there and I am not the only one.  Mass Effect 3 might have had a good story, but the ending(s) are an atrocious fallacy of logic, even including within the game itself, let alone the rest of the series.  Adventure (from the Atari 2000 ) had a better written ending...because it didn't have one.

NOW, having said that, there are parts of ME3 that are widely recognized as good.  The Tuchanka arc.  Some (and I agree) the Rannoch arc.  I like Thessia, with the exception of Kai Leng.  If that is enough for some to say it was good, then fine.  But it is certainly not an unpopular point of view that the ending(s) ruin all of that. 

Do not screw up your ending.  Anyone who ever worked in the entertainment industry knows that.

Now, closure.  Again, like happy endings, not necessary.  However, if you aren't going to provide it, you better do a good job which ME3 did not do.  Books without closure, done well, are remembered.  Books without closure, done poorly, aren't even sold.  Books, done poorly, with closure and happy endings still line the shelves of bookstores and a litany of critics decry their existance.  Probably rightly so, but they are still there.

Since any choice of merit was thrown out, and the ending wasn't being written by some literary genius, if I was BioWare, I would have darn well made sure there was closure, if I wasn't going for a happy ending.

[Iakus]

AndyAK79 wrote...

Most of your arguments revolve around the fact that the game wasn't exactly what you wanted it to be. Nobody was ever going to make that game, iakus.

No, most of my arguments revole around the game wrecking an entire trilogy's experience for me.  And for tohers, so stop trying to make it sound like I'm the only one who expereinced this.

DA2 ending wasn't "exactly what I wanted".  But you know what?  It didn't destroy the game's experience for me.  And certainly not the DAO experience.

ME3's ending made the entire trilogy a waste of time.

And just because you  either don't or can't understand that doesn't render what I have to say invalid.  

[AndyAK79]

Kel Riever wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

I think Mass Effect 3 has a great story, the characters are the best they've ever been and the people behind the game did an outstanding job. Bioware agree, which is why they are allowing them to continue the series. Ending issues notwithstanding, very few people would suggest ME3 is a shoddy product in the way you imply.

And nobody - literally nobody - is saying you aren't supposed to want closure or a good ending or to be satisfied.

I'll just disagree with you there and I am not the only one.  Mass Effect 3 might have had a good story, but the ending(s) are an atrocious fallacy of logic, even including within the game itself, let alone the rest of the series.  Adventure (from the Atari 2000 ) had a better written ending...because it didn't have one.

NOW, having said that, there are parts of ME3 that are widely recognized as good.  The Tuchanka arc.  Some (and I agree) the Rannoch arc.  I like Thessia, with the exception of Kai Leng.  If that is enough for some to say it was good, then fine.  But it is certainly not an unpopular point of view that the ending(s) ruin all of that. 

Do not screw up your ending.  Anyone who ever worked in the entertainment industry knows that.

Now, closure.  Again, like happy endings, not necessary.  However, if you aren't going to provide it, you better do a good job which ME3 did not do.  Books without closure, done well, are remembered.  Books without closure, done poorly, aren't even sold.  Books, done poorly, with closure and happy endings still line the shelves of bookstores and a litany of critics decry their existance.  Probably rightly so, but they are still there.

Since any choice of merit was thrown out, and the ending wasn't being written by some literary genius, if I was BioWare, I would have darn well made sure there was closure, if I wasn't going for a happy ending.

A couple of problems with your response;

1) I said, quite unambiguously, ending notwithstanding. Your response is a rant about endings.

2) I have explained that I think the endings are of a high quality and bring satisfactory closure in many posts on this thread, along with my reasons why (my last post but one sums up the jist of it). 

3) All your argument about books seems to suggest is that it's okay to write a crap book as long as you provide closure and a happy ending. I don't know how this possibly supports your argument. On the same subject, you say that "Books without closure, done well, are remembered." I say this is complete rubbish and ask you provide an example to support your statement.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 05:36 .

[CronoDragoon]

How are we defining closure in this case?

[shingara]

I dont think there is a closure within me3, im not saying as a person myself or you dont have it but as a playerbase we most definatly do not. We have gone into outright warfare with each other simply because we chose door 1,2,3 or 4. We cannot have a civil debate about anything related to to me3 like we did with me1 and 2 simply because everything in 3 leads to the endings.

And if you think about it, that very fact that we cannot get passed 3 then we are going tobe very jaded on 4 and the feedback bioware shall get on 4 will inevitably be tainted because of 3.

Modifié par shingara, 16 octobre 2013 - 05:45 .

[Reorte]

AndyAK79 wrote...

2) I have explained that I think the endings are of a high quality and bring satisfactory closure in many posts on this thread, along with my reasons why (my last post but one sums up the jist of it).

Hahahahahahaha! Ha!

[AndyAK79]

[quote]iakus wrote...

Most of your arguments revolve around the fact that the game wasn't exactly what you wanted it to be. Nobody was ever going to make that game, iakus.[/quote]

No, most of my arguments revole around the game wrecking an entire trilogy's experience for me.  And for tohers, so stop trying to make it sound like I'm the only one who expereinced this.

[/quote]

I have never suggested that you were the only one who experienced this. My point is that your arguments are egocentric. They are concerned with your expectations of what the game should have been rather than what the game actually was. The use of the words "for me" in your response doesn't exactly dispute this.

[Reorte]

AndyAK79 wrote...

I have never suggested that you were the only one who experienced this. My point is that your arguments are egocentric. They are concerned with your expectations of what the game should have been rather than what the game actually was. The use of the words "for me" in your response doesn't exactly dispute this.

His use of the word "me" just emphasises that he's accepting that other people might have different views. Your argument about "what the game actually was" looks like an attempt to claim any criticism whatsoever is invalid.

[AndyAK79]

Reorte wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

I have never suggested that you were the only one who experienced this. My point is that your arguments are egocentric. They are concerned with your expectations of what the game should have been rather than what the game actually was. The use of the words "for me" in your response doesn't exactly dispute this.

His use of the word "me" just emphasises that he's accepting that other people might have different views. Your argument about "what the game actually was" looks like an attempt to claim any criticism whatsoever is invalid.

Saying what you think should have been in a game isn't criticism, it's just saying it would be better if you wrote it.

And since your response to criticism is

Reorte wrote...

Hahahahahahaha! Ha!

you might want to avoid the moral high ground.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Kel Riever]

@AndyAK79

1) I get it. So okay. But it is hard for me to talk about closure and not the endings. How can you?

2) That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Now, just so you know, I differentiate myself between what I like and what I believe to be good. For example, I was never a fan of Breaking Bad, but I widely accept that it is a quality show. Also, I like the Underworld movie series, but you will never hear me defend it as a work of genius. You outlined your reasons. I've outlined mine and for me, ME3 is in the category of something I consider bad and not of quality.

3) I think you are taking what I am saying just one step too far here. All I am saying is from the point of view of selling stuff, yes, that is a better answer, to have a book with closure and even a 'happy' ending if you aren't going to have someone who knows what they are doing write it. And there's a million of them out there that sell.

For an example of stories without closure that are well written, well, there are many, though they are in the minority. Now, mind you, we have to agree what closure is. In this case, I'm going to say it is closure where we don't reach a definative resolution for the main character. Or as some like to say, we are left 'speculating' on what happens to a main, critical character (hero or villain) at the end. Good enough? Hopefully this or some similar definition can be used.

Why I think it isn't rubbish. Here are some stories which are widely acclaimed with no closure (I am thinking movies, so let's see how this goes):

1. No Country for Old Men: Note, I do not like this movie. However, it is an Oscar winner, widely popular and we do not have any closure with the main villain, though we get some sort of sense and are left speculating what happens to him.

2. Twelve Monkeys: I like it, but I find it universally loved or despised. Still, not a resolution for the main character

3. Inception: Clearly we are left wondering if the main character is still in a dream. No closure. Excellent flick.

4. The original Mary Shelly's Frankenstein: We're left with Dr. Frankenstein chasing the monster endlessly through the arctic. Hey, it was a big deal in its time. Going back to read it is interesting though somewhat painful.

Anyway, there are some examples. I think at the very least the term closure is arguable for these stories that clearly leave the reader wondering what will happen and do not resolve what ends up happening to main characters.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 16 octobre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Dr. Megaverse]

Reorte wrote...

His use of the word "me" just emphasises that he's accepting that other people might have different views. Your argument about "what the game actually was" looks like an attempt to claim any criticism whatsoever is invalid.

Have to agree here.  Spending 17 pages yelling "Nuh uh! " won't make this dissapear...

[Reorte]

AndyAK79 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

I have never suggested that you were the only one who experienced this. My point is that your arguments are egocentric. They are concerned with your expectations of what the game should have been rather than what the game actually was. The use of the words "for me" in your response doesn't exactly dispute this.

His use of the word "me" just emphasises that he's accepting that other people might have different views. Your argument about "what the game actually was" looks like an attempt to claim any criticism whatsoever is invalid.

Saying what you think should have been in a game isn't criticism, it's just saying it would be better if you wrote it.

It's a very big part of criticism. You've got a stronger argument about a problem if you've got alternatives to offer. That's why some of ME3's issues get off the hook more than others, because it's harder to come up with decent alternatives (in general the problems caused by ME2 failing to do anything much with the overall plot).

And since your response to criticism is

Reorte wrote...

Hahahahahahaha! Ha!

you might want to avoid the moral high ground.

Good job I wasn't trying to claim it, I've never claimed to be above sneering at the ridiculous.

[AndyAK79]

Kel Riever wrote...

For an example of stories without closure that are well written, well, there are many, though they are in the minority. Now, mind you, we have to agree what closure is. In this case, I'm going to say it is closure where we don't reach a definative resolution for the main character. Or as some like to say, we are left 'speculating' on what happens to a main, critical character (hero or villain) at the end. Good enough? Hopefully this or some similar definition can be used.

Why I think it isn't rubbish. Here are some stories which are widely acclaimed with no closure (I am thinking movies, so let's see how this goes):

1. No Country for Old Men: Note, I do not like this movie. However, it is an Oscar winner, widely popular and we do not have any closure with the main villain, though we get some sort of sense and are left speculating what happens to him.

2. Twelve Monkeys: I like it, but I find it universally loved or despised. Still, not a resolution for the main character

3. Inception: Clearly we are left wondering if the main character is still in a dream. No closure. Excellent flick.

4. The original Mary Shelly's Frankenstein: We're left with Dr. Frankenstein chasing the monster endlessly through the arctic. Hey, it was a big deal in its time. Going back to read it is interesting though somewhat painful.

Anyway, there are some examples. I think at the very least the term closure is arguable for these stories that clearly leave the reader wondering what will happen and do not resolve what ends up happening to main characters.

You are absolutely right, as long as you use an extremely narrow definition of closure which exactly suits your argument. Also, you clearly haven't read Frankenstein (or at least not recently and/or properly); the story does not end in the manner you state.

[Reorte]

Kel Riever wrote...

2. Twelve Monkeys: I like it, but I find it universally loved or despised. Still, not a resolution for the main character

Interesting example, since Twelve Monkeys worked well for me too.

[Kel Riever]

AndyAK79 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

For an example of stories without closure that are well written, well, there are many, though they are in the minority. Now, mind you, we have to agree what closure is. In this case, I'm going to say it is closure where we don't reach a definative resolution for the main character. Or as some like to say, we are left 'speculating' on what happens to a main, critical character (hero or villain) at the end. Good enough? Hopefully this or some similar definition can be used.

Why I think it isn't rubbish. Here are some stories which are widely acclaimed with no closure (I am thinking movies, so let's see how this goes):

1. No Country for Old Men: Note, I do not like this movie. However, it is an Oscar winner, widely popular and we do not have any closure with the main villain, though we get some sort of sense and are left speculating what happens to him.

2. Twelve Monkeys: I like it, but I find it universally loved or despised. Still, not a resolution for the main character

3. Inception: Clearly we are left wondering if the main character is still in a dream. No closure. Excellent flick.

4. The original Mary Shelly's Frankenstein: We're left with Dr. Frankenstein chasing the monster endlessly through the arctic. Hey, it was a big deal in its time. Going back to read it is interesting though somewhat painful.

Anyway, there are some examples. I think at the very least the term closure is arguable for these stories that clearly leave the reader wondering what will happen and do not resolve what ends up happening to main characters.

You are absolutely right, as long as you use an extremely narrow definition of closure which exactly suits your argument. Also, you clearly haven't read Frankenstein (or at least not recently and/or properly); the story does not end in the manner you state.

You haven't defined closure and yet you are calling my definition of narrow.  That means its your turn to make a case if you are going to make that accusation.

Frankenstein I'll give you.  I ended up having to read it 3 times, but all of those were over 20 years ago.  Doesn't disprove my point with the other 3 examples though.  Or others you can think of.

@Reorte:  Yeah, I did like it.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 16 octobre 2013 - 06:15 .

[Iakus]

AndyAK79 wrote...

I have never suggested that you were the only one who experienced this. My point is that your arguments are egocentric. They are concerned with your expectations of what the game should have been rather than what the game actually was. The use of the words "for me" in your response doesn't exactly dispute this.

I use "for me" because I am, and always have been, speaking my opinion.  If I'm being egocentric for daring to do so, well, sorry you feel that way.

Actually, no, I'm not sorry.


And of course I'm going to be operating based on my expectations of what the game "should have been".  If it met my expectations, I wouldn't have a problem with the game now, would I?

You, however, try to portray me as having some exact definition of what should have been.  And I'm mad it didn't fit my exacting expectations.  This is not true.  I have several ideas of what could have worked.  But I'm not after a "perfect" ending.  I'm quite willing to settle for "good enough"

Heck even MEHEM, so far above and beyond the endings we got, isn't a "perfect" ending for me.  No ending is perfect.  but ME3's are just plain bad.

Edit:  "to me"

Modifié par iakus, 16 octobre 2013 - 06:16 .

[AndyAK79]

Reorte wrote...

It's a very big part of criticism. You've got a stronger argument about a problem if you've got alternatives to offer. That's why some of ME3's issues get off the hook more than others, because it's harder to come up with decent alternatives (in general the problems caused by ME2 failing to do anything much with the overall plot).

I refer you to the Oxford English dictionary definition of criticism

noun[mass noun]
1. the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes:he received a lot of criticism;
he ignored the criticisms of his friends

[2the analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work: alternative methods of criticism supported by well-developed literary theories; the scholarly investigation of literary or historical texts to determine their origin or intended form.

You may notice that this does not remotely imply that suggesting an alternative or stating how much better your version is criticism. You'd think if this was a 'very big part' of criticism the finest dictionary in the world might mention it. Also note that proffesional critics do not do this.

Also note that I actually explain myself instead of sneering at your ridiculousness.  

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 06:29 .

[AndyAK79]

Kel Riever wrote...

You haven't defined closure and yet you are calling my definition of narrow.  That means its your turn to make a case if you are going to make that accusation.

I'm not using a special definition, I'm using the standard definition in English in this context. According to the OED: 

a sense of resolution or conclusion at the end of an artistic work:he brings modernistic closure to his narrative

Modifié par AndyAK79, 16 octobre 2013 - 06:28 .