1814 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

  I don't wanna sound too hypocritical or nitpicky now, but I just feel like it didn't... and it's mostly because of the reviewers and Bioware themselves.

In hindsight I think I do respect artistic integrity wheras before ME3 I was like "Artistic what??" but for me and likely everyone else that whole ending => artistic integrity debacle was like a copout, like Bioware saying "this is our excuse for rushing it and we don't honestly care that much about our own art". at least not enough to realise how much they ruined, but at the same time I understand that in retrospect it would look incredibly weak on their record if they completely changed it and like they keep saying "some like it" which I think are mostly a minority group of people who like it in the details and the rest just didn't care enough to realise how bad it was.

But whatever, what frustrated me most was, as a person who did not really dig ME3 as a whole (gameplay = better AND worse because of streamlining and oversights, Story = much worse in general, RPG = Better and a LOT worse at the same time) that reviewers, (Kotaku, IGN, Gametrailers etc.) gave it VEEERY favorable reviews even despite of Gametrailers, for example, realising how dumbed down the narrative had gotten saying "the overarching conflict has been reduced to being about the struggle of synthetics and organics" and they noted that "choices didn't ultimately matter that much" but they still gave it a 9.0 while way too many reviewers were like "10/10".

I get a lot of people think it deserved it, but to me, being one who think ME3 is much worse than the other two games, it's almost heartbreaking to think that now Bioware is probably like "yes, let's just continue this trend". That sucks so much in my opinion. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

And whenever you hear the writers talk about the ending it's reduced to:

"people like it, some don't, but even some of those who don't understood why Shepard had to die"

And this is not just Mac Walters. I've heard Patrick Weekes and Casey say something along those vibes too. Mac said "We underestimated players and, you know, lessons learned..." in one interview and to me it just seems like they didn't learn jack! So I'm afraid that ME4 will just continue the ME3 trend of making everything too summer-hollywood-like because that's what the reviewers liked and they're going to continue to underestimate those who want intelligent storytelling because they fail to grasp why ME3's story was bad.

I know some think ME3 is fantastic and I thought it was a "great game" too, but storywise and in terms of gameplay (mostly dialogue) the game felt sooo dumbed down and especially the writing struggled to make me take it seriously at its worst and that happened far more often than in ME2 for me.

[KaiserShep]

Part of me feels that the folks that speak on behalf of BioWare are in a bit of a bind when it comes to discussing the reception of this game. I have this suspicion that some would simply not be satisfied until Walters or Hudson threw up his hands and said "You know, we have realized that this game is mediocre, and we would like to extend our sincerest apologies to the fans that have stuck with us since the very beginning." Of course, that would be insane.

[KaiserShep]

I've always found the "Hollywood" criticism a bit curious, as this assumes that a big budget action film released in the summer is somehow automatically bad, or devoid of fun. There's this air of pretentiousness that comes with this kind of criticism, and it really annoys me.

There's all sorts of things I see people complain about on the internet (not just BSN) when it comes to this game, and of course Mass Effect 2, and some can be pretty unreasonable. For example, the geth. Some seem to wish that they were just some kind of skynet-like entity that we had to wipe out, and the [erroneous] comparison to Pinocchio is all too prevalent.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 décembre 2013 - 12:22 .

[Armass81]

StreetMagic wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Summer hollywood? Underestimating those who want intelligent storytelling? Don't make me laugh.

Mass Effect 3's ending was an attempt (an ATTEMPT, I said--whether it was successful or not is irrelevant) at complexities that ME1 and ME2's main plots couldn't hope to attain.

ME1 & ME2's explanation of the Reapers was "RAWR, KILL ORGANICS 2KOMPLEX4U." ME3 indisputably made their goals far more complex. Indisputably. You may not like how it actually came off (and that's fine), but you're absolutely wrong that it was, in any way whatsoever, less intelligent than ME1 and ME2's main plots.

I'd agree there. It was a better attempt at the Reaper plot itself.

But I wouldn't take away anything from ME2. I don't give a **** about the main plot to begin with. When it comes down to it, all I care about are characters. And smaller character plots. Everything goes to the pisser when it comes to bigger plots. And as far as characters go, I think the series has always had a lot of artistic credibility in that respect. I do not ridicule them for using the "art" excuse like some do. They're definitely capable of art. I just don't think the Reaper plot has much hope of ever attaining it. Their strength is character stories.

So do you think that ME should be just small character stories in a static universe? Even the best characters are ultimately wasted into their own tiny circles if theres no bigger plot which ties them together and lets them show their true potential. Other wise you have: heres Garrus for 3 hours, youre done? Now lets go to Jack, to the other side of the galaxy, whats she doing? And theyre completely unrelated to anything bigger happening. ME 12 stories, buy in episodes! ..... No thank you. We have the crappy comics for that, if someone wants to buy them.

I dont think they should abandon epic story arcs and bigger plots, but what they need to do is make a firm decision of the direction they take it into before hand, not just invent it as they go along, or they will end up in a dead end like we pretty much saw.

Have they learned anything? If they havent they must be both blind and deaf, thats what ill say. Theyre already on thin ice after the things theyve done, id walk very carefully. If the passion dies out, the series does too. It becomes another soulless milking cow for the company, and some of the masses will lap it up like they always do. I guess we will just have to see, wont we.

Modifié par Armass81, 18 décembre 2013 - 12:43 .

[wright1978]

PR bluster will always try to spin a trainwreck into something less serious.

Where we will learn if any lessons were learned it is in DAI & ME4(or whatever it will be called)

[KaiserShep]

^Pretty much.

There's no point in really coming to any conclusions and spelling out doom until we have a solid idea of what the next game will be like.

[crimzontearz]

Ok....

This is getting to me, so, a few pointers

1: you need to ask if Mac and Casey learned, not if Bioware as a whole did, Preston sure enough did not seem to want to troll the fan base for instance, Brenon Holmes was honest about the EMS screw up, he apologized and DID NOT try to cover it or dismiss it. Which leads me to the following points...

2: the man responsible for the ending and some of the worst handling of the fallout WAS PROMOTED (is it a promoveatur ut amoveatur situation? I hope so....but I doubt it)

3: in an interview the interlocutor SAYS they learned their lesson BUT at the same time says that in hindsight they would not change a thing (dafuq???)

4: Bioware (and especially Casey) has asked NUMEROUS TIMES if we wanted a prequel or sequel in spite of the overwhelming consistency of the "give us a sequel" responses.....uhm....seems almost like they are trying to get the answer they want because "they know best".

Does it reaaaaally look like they learned anything? So far no but as it was said it dies SEEM like the DA team learned something so far so...who knows.

[KaiserShep]

crimzontearz wrote...
3: in an interview the interlocutor SAYS they learned their lesson BUT at the same time says that in hindsight they would not change a thing (dafuq???)

I wouldn't take this too seriously. Take, for example, Apple's stance on the use of web applications through Safari instead of native third party app support on the first generation iPhone. This was much maligned by a lot of people, but Apple never claimed it to be a mistake, but because of just how poorly this was received, third party support was added not long after. Apple, historically, has always supported its products despite some glaring flaws, but quietly rectified issues or treated these changes like some big new feature without being down on the previous version. Supporting your product does not necessarily mean that they don't learn, so talk is cheap. I want to see what they do with ME:Whatever before I decide whether or not they took to heart the various issues players had with ME3.

After all, when all's said and done, they do want people to continue to buy this game.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 décembre 2013 - 02:39 .

[dreamgazer]

Why would they not give it favorable reviews? The game was strong and improved on ME2 in several ways, while the plot itself actually tried to get its act together following ME2's avoidance of the core issues.

... in an interview the interlocutor SAYS they learned their lesson BUT at the same time says that in hindsight they would not change a thing (dafuq???)

About Shepard's fate, not the entire thing. You're doing it again.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 18 décembre 2013 - 02:49 .

[dreamgazer]

EntropicAngel wrote...

But calling ME3's plot "underestimating intelligence" while ignoring ME1 and ME2 is just wrong.

Too true. 

[crimzontearz]

About Shepard's fate, not the entire thing. You're doing it again.

Right, that is AFTER saying he understands why taking Shepard's fate from the hands of the players pissed them off.

My point stands, this kind of attitude needs to be excised from the company and quickly

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

ME2 didn't get to the core issues because they knew it was trouble even back then. Hold it off as long as possible. It was a good policy. The core issues suck. Mass Effect is like a beast eating itself, starting at the tail. It's plot destroys it's own world and setting. It works against itself. Best to stave it off and enjoy the world as much as possible.

As someone who still enjoys ME2 for many of the same reasons, I don't disagree.  

But it still presents a problem in the overarching narrative that ME3, despite stumbling in more than a few areas, addressed.

[eyezonlyii]

StreetMagic wrote...

ME2 didn't get to the core issues because they knew it was trouble even back then. Hold it off as long as possible. It was a good policy. The core issues suck. Mass Effect is like a beast eating itself, starting at the tail. It's plot destroys it's own world and setting. It works against itself. Best to stave it off and enjoy the world as much as possible.

this could hav ebeen a great premise. Having the reapers as a looming threat for the Shepard trilogy but never getting there, essentially doing like the protheans and getting the galaxy ready. 

next series could have been about the collectors/cerberus (with characer ceation from henry lawson's point of view creating another version of himself).

then the crucible plot as a full on Spectre (any council species) or mercenary warlord under aria

final game, the three protags from each series face th reapers in their own way.

Modifié par eyezonlyii, 18 décembre 2013 - 03:18 .

[AresKeith]

Maybe next time Bioware should PLAN AHEAD

[Wayning_Star]

gosh OP, isn't there about a hundred or more of these same opinions posted here/on the BSN? Why reiterate, it's all just opinions usually, very little of it is factual defamation but hear say?

[TigusVidiks]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Summer hollywood? Underestimating those who want intelligent storytelling? Don't make me laugh.

Mass Effect 3's ending was an attempt (an ATTEMPT, I said--whether it was successful or not is irrelevant) at complexities that ME1 and ME2's main plots couldn't hope to attain.

ME1 & ME2's explanation of the Reapers was "RAWR, KILL ORGANICS 2KOMPLEX4U." ME3 indisputably made their goals far more complex. Indisputably. You may not like how it actually came off (and that's fine), but you're absolutely wrong that it was, in any way whatsoever, less intelligent than ME1 and ME2's main plots.

KaiserShep wrote...

Part of me feels that the folks that speak on behalf of BioWare are in a bit of a bind when it comes to discussing the reception of this game. I have this suspicion that some would simply not be satisfied until Walters or Hudson threw up his hands and said "You know, we have realized that this game is mediocre, and we would like to extend our sincerest apologies to the fans that have stuck with us since the very beginning." Of course, that would be insane.

I can't imagine crafting something I love, then watching people sh*t all over it and throw it back in my face demanding something else, and feeling anything OTHER than "go blow yourself."

I commend them for their attitudes.

I simply don't see it, in all honesty.
Nothing that ME3 presents wasn't there already in the previous games.  On the contrary, several things that were there in ME1 and 2, simply vanish in ME3, story wise. 
They attempted to give more detail about the reapers, sure. But come on - that was not only expected, but demanded to end the trilogy, specially after the first 2 games gave so little hard info on the reapers origins and goals. Those had to come in 3, no other option. You may feel a bit more harrowing with the last third of the plot in ME3, because everything goes more mature and darkened in preparation for the bitter-sweet finale.  But all the details they put into it, goes from the starting point of having abandoned completely major parts of the meta story. Dark Energy implications, Haellstom, etc.
ME1 specially, and also ME2 (less) always gave you a glimpse and several hints  that the reapers were not just "RAWR, KILL ORGANICS  2KOMPLEX4U" (like you say), and had a dark hidden major motive for what they were doing,  that you could not really grasp YET at that point, despite your attempts.
ME3 presents that dark hidden agenda as an underwelming "we kill advanced organics to prevent them from building syntethics that would kill them all", which is the most basic and lazy end plot possible to do with the existing lore.
Not even going into the fact that they humanized all the alien species, striping them of their own cultures and streamlining them with human culture. I mean, Turians soldiers saluting? really?

Modifié par TigusVidiks, 18 décembre 2013 - 04:17 .

[Wayning_Star]

there are limits to the ability of story tellers to include the story reader. At some point the story readers have to imagine their owe variation of the writers version of events. Like with BS Infinite, there is no way to alter the effort that represent infinity, even the props were pre designed, as the player/reader had to be guided along the "path", even though the inferences were pointed at infinite.

Mass Effect gained that by only inferring the actuality within, the star gazer scene releases the reader to imagine what ever they want, as the MEU reality is never etched in stone, as it were.

It cannot be done would be my guess..lol

[CronoDragoon]

Armass81 wrote...
So do you think that ME should be just small character stories in a static universe?

I think what Street is getting at is that there's a middle ground between Reapers and a game filled with nothing but loyalty missions. Imagine a Collector plot without the Reapers lurking behind them. That's still a worthy main adversary to a stand-alone ME game. You're still saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

[CronoDragoon]

TigusVidiks wrote...
I simply don't see it, in all honesty.
Nothing that ME3 presents wasn't there already in the previous games.

 

But all the details they put into it, goes from the starting point of having abandoned completely major parts of the meta story. Dark Energy implications, Haellstom, etc.

Dark energy is not a major part of ME1 or ME2's plot.

ME3 presents that dark hidden agenda as an underwelming "we kill advanced organics to prevent them from building syntethics that would kill them all", which is the most basic and lazy end plot possible to do with the existing lore.

Uhhhh, no it's not, not by a long shot. There are far lazier endings they could have done. Like not giving an explanation. Not that I think this ending is great or flawless by any means.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 18 décembre 2013 - 04:41 .