95 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
Really? The Mako itself was fine but the terrain on all the random worlds wasn't, and the inventory was handled clunkily to say the least. The concept of both was good (to a degree, I'm not really a fan of levelled up numbers throughout a game, particularly in a story-driven one), the implementation left room for improvement.

I didn't think either concept was any good in the first place, myself. Neither planetary exploration nor scrounging for credits to buy stuff have anything to do with Shepard's position and mission. RPG systems should support the role-playing, not undermine it.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What nonsense? The devs have flatly said that the ending was interpreted in ways they didn't intend or expect.

That's not the same as "the fans can't be trusted with interpretation".

The only difference is the level of snark.

[GimmeDaGun]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Just because the same lame cliche has been used elsewhere in things that are otherwise good doesn't stop it from being stupid and frustrating.

I'll take the "lame, cliche" thing in The Thing and Total Recall above Aliens and Return of the Jedi any day of the week, thankyaverymuch. 

So your opinions are lame and cliche. Got it.

 Niiiiiice... 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's what I aim for. Snark.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Chashan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

What happened to MacReady at the end of The Thing? Was Quaid in Total Recall or not? 

Thing with those two flicks is: they worked.

Suggesting ME3's finale is on that level is somewhat...daring.

Nah, it's on that level, but suggesting that ambiguous, open endings are some bizarre thing in science-fiction simply isn't right.

It can work.  If done right.

ME3 was done completely wrong.  And worse, Bioware refuses to acknowledge it was done wrong, but instead blames the audience for not getting it

Oh any fyi:

Macready either freezes to death or gets eaten.  Either way "bad times"

Quaid was real.  The audience is made privvy to information he had no way of knowing.

Better question (and better handled) would be, was Cobb dreaming at the end of Inception?

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Funny to see the same people on here complaining about the ending two years ago still hanging around and doing the exact same thing.

[KLGChaos]

The real problem with the endings is that they didn't account for the entire breadth of their fan base. You can't give choices throughout the games that lead to happy, bittersweet or bad outcomes and then only have bittersweet endings at the very end. Games focused around so much choice need to at least provide a variety of endings for players, even if it requires a perfect playthrough through all three games to get that "happier" ending.

It's the one thing I hope Bioware learns from this. Either don't give players choices or keep them consistent until the very end. Let players shape their own character or not at all. No more letting them make choices and shape their character's personality, followed by taking it away and altering what their character would do. It's inconsistent and sends a bad message to players.

Honestly, I see all endings as Renegade choices anyway. Destroy kills all synthetic life, which a Renegade player who doesn't trust synthetics doesn't get affected by, so they have no downside to the choice. Control puts the character at the risk of corruption for power--again a Renegade choice, who probably would have no problem becoming a god. Synthesis force eugenics on the galaxy without their consent and removes diversity-- again, a Renegade choice, imo, with the only Paragon aspect of it being the sacrifice of Shep's life. Somewhere along the line, they sort of forgot about Paragon players.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 24 janvier 2014 - 03:53 .

[crimzontearz]

Better question (and better handled) would be, was Cobb dreaming at the end of Inception?

Word of god says no

[Iakus]

KLGChaos wrote...

The real problem with the endings is that they didn't account for the entire breadth of their fan base. You can't give choices throughout the games that lead to happy, bittersweet or bad outcomes and then only have bittersweet endings at the very end. Games focused around so much choice need to at least provide a variety of endings for players, even if it requires a perfect playthrough through all three games to get that "happier" ending.

QFT

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

Better question (and better handled) would be, was Cobb dreaming at the end of Inception?

Word of god says no

That so?

SPOILER ALERT: At the end of the mind-bending movie, the camera cuts away from Dominic Cobb's (Leonardo DiCaprio) spinning top as he is reunited with his kids, leaving viewers to wonder whether the top continued to turn endlessly, meaning the scenario was all a dream, or falls over, signifying that it was reality.

Nolan tells Entertainment Weekly he refuses to set the record straight. “I’ve been asked the question more times than I’ve ever been asked any other question about any other film I’ve made,” he says. “What’s funny to me is that people really do expect me to answer it.” Nolan adds that he tries to leave his movies open to interpretation.

“There can’t be anything in the film that tells you one way or another because then the ambiguity at the end of the film would just be a mistake,” he says. “It would represent a failure of the film to communicate something. But it’s not a mistake. I put that cut there at the end, imposing an ambiguity from outside the film. That always felt the right ending to me."

The real point of the scene, he explains, is that Cobb is looking at his kids and not the top. "He’s left it behind," says Nolan. "That’s the emotional significance of the thing.”

He does, however, state what he chooses to believe about his ending, but that's not a Word of God answer.

And was it really all just a dream?

It's very important to me that by the end of the film you understand what Mal (Marion Cotillard) means when she says to Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), "You don't believe in one reality anymore," and that we see the potential for getting lost.

What's your take on the ending?

I choose to believe that Cobb gets back to his kids, because I have young kids. People who have kids definitely read it differently than those who don't. Clearly the audience brings a lot to it. The most important emotional thing about the top spinning at the end is that Cobb is not looking at it. He doesn't care.

However, he also states something that'll speak to those opposed to interpreting ME3's ending.

I've always believed that if you make a film with ambiguity, it needs to be based on a true interpretation. If it's not, then it will contradict itself, or it will be somehow insubstantial and end up making the audience feel cheated. Ambiguity has to come from the inability of the character to know -- and the alignment of the audience with that character.

http://www.wired.co....lives-the-dream

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

The real problem with the endings is that they didn't account for the entire breadth of their fan base. You can't give choices throughout the games that lead to happy, bittersweet or bad outcomes and then only have bittersweet endings at the very end. Games focused around so much choice need to at least provide a variety of endings for players, even if it requires a perfect playthrough through all three games to get that "happier" ending.

QFT

As usual, I disagree. We should probably just do AutoText versions of the arguments.

[crimzontearz]

Try again gazer, the spin top is not his totem and Cain said it was not a dream

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

Try again gazer, the spin top is not his totem and Cain said it was not a dream

Did you read anything from what I posted, which is from Christopher Nolan himself and addresses the top?

Also, when did the statements from actors become the "Word of God"?  Perhaps you should read this.

I don’t mean to be a stickler here, but anything Michael Caine says about Christopher Nolan’s intended meaning for Inception’s ending technically qualifies as hearsay. And besides, every film critic—or professor of critical theory, for that matter—would happily tell you that it doesn’t matter one iota what the artist says his or her movie, book, play, painting, comic book, videogame, et cetera actually means. The author of the work is responsible for, at best, just one interpretation of said work. So just because Michael Caine says Christopher Nolan intended for Inception’s ending to exist in the real world, doesn’t make it so. It doesn’t mean that I was wrong, or you were wrong, or that my grandma was wrong—she’s pretty darn sure the whole movie was a dream, like Dallas season 8.

[crimzontearz]

No, Cain said he was not present (his character at least) in any dream scene, thus the ending is not a dream, of course, you will say that Nolan smugness>everything and I am not gonna try to dissuade you, so I will just go back to watch his work on TDK trilogy being happily shredded in the upcoming batman vs superman movie and laugh.

[AlanC9]

How would Caine know?

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 janvier 2014 - 06:28 .

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

No, Cain said he was not present (his character at least) in any dream scene, thus the ending is not a dream, of course, you will say that Nolan smugness>everything and I am not gonna try to dissuade you, so I will just go back to watch his work on TDK trilogy being happily shredded in the upcoming batman vs superman movie and laugh.

(laughs)

If by "smugness" you mean "actual Word of God" and not the viewpoint of one actor, then yes, I will say that. 

[AlanC9]

dreamgazer wrote...

And besides, every film critic—or professor of critical theory, for that matter—would happily tell you that it doesn’t matter one iota what the artist says his or her movie, book, play, painting, comic book, videogame, et cetera actually means. The author of the work is responsible for, at best, just one interpretation of said work.

I always thought this was a funny direction for critical theory to go in. Once you stop believing that there's a real  - or maybe the word is privileged - interpretation out there, what's the point of the exercise? 

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

The real problem with the endings is that they didn't account for the entire breadth of their fan base. You can't give choices throughout the games that lead to happy, bittersweet or bad outcomes and then only have bittersweet endings at the very end. Games focused around so much choice need to at least provide a variety of endings for players, even if it requires a perfect playthrough through all three games to get that "happier" ending.

QFT

As usual, I disagree. We should probably just do AutoText versions of the arguments.

How about you just give the Cliff's Notes version of why not accounting for the breadth of the fan base (especially when they expressly state a desire to expand it) is not a very very bad thing?

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

No, Cain said he was not present (his character at least) in any dream scene, thus the ending is not a dream, of course, you will say that Nolan smugness>everything and I am not gonna try to dissuade you, so I will just go back to watch his work on TDK trilogy being happily shredded in the upcoming batman vs superman movie and laugh.

You didn't like the TDK films?

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
How about you just give the Cliff's Notes version of why not accounting for the breadth of the fan base (especially when they expressly state a desire to expand it) is not a very very bad thing?

Because it's impossible to do. I have a feeling that what you are trying to say is that since more fans wanted a happy ending that is the route they should have taken, which is not accounting for the breadth of the fan base but rather pandering to a specific group of people who happen to be more numerous than others (if it is even true that the majority of fans wanted a happy ending).

In my case, I would have taken being pandered all to hell, but oh well.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 25 janvier 2014 - 07:56 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
How about you just give the Cliff's Notes version of why not accounting for the breadth of the fan base (especially when they expressly state a desire to expand it) is not a very very bad thing?

Because it's impossible to do. I have a feeling that what you are trying to say is that since more fans wanted a happy ending that is the route they should have taken, which is not accounting for the breadth of the fan base but rather pandering to a specific group of people who happen to be more numerous than others (if it is even true that the majority of fans wanted a happy ending).

In my case, I would have taken being pandered all to hell, but oh well.

Why is it impossible?

"Just because" is hardly an answer.  Look at  Dragon Age: Origins 

[Ownedbacon]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Funny to see the same people on here complaining about the ending two years ago still hanging around and doing the exact same thing.

Well when bad inconsistent writing ruins the majority of the third game and the ending to a trilogy you really enjoyed and logged 100+ hours into, I can't say I blame them for sticking around.
The game's best accomplishment is the Genophage storyline. It was the part of the story that was handled with care throughout the trilogy and its resolution in ME3 is well done. It was written consistently throughout, other long running stories have too many flaws due to changes in ME3 that sour those specific resolutions. The ending and changes to the  Reaper story are the biggest problems in ME3 and in the trilogy.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

The real problem with the endings is that they didn't account for the entire breadth of their fan base. You can't give choices throughout the games that lead to happy, bittersweet or bad outcomes and then only have bittersweet endings at the very end. Games focused around so much choice need to at least provide a variety of endings for players, even if it requires a perfect playthrough through all three games to get that "happier" ending.

QFT

As usual, I disagree. We should probably just do AutoText versions of the arguments.

How about you just give the Cliff's Notes version of why not accounting for the breadth of the fan base (especially when they expressly state a desire to expand it) is not a very very bad thing?

Missed this the other day.

I suppose the super-short version is that Bio'd be better off without fans who demand always having a happy ending available, and without fans who demand that following deontological ("Paragon") morality always works. It's a constricting vision of what games can be, and an unnecessary limitation. (It's not like The Last of Us failed or anything, so I don't see the sales impact of writing you guys off as being too large)

Of course, this is not much of an answer to KLGChaos' point about previous choices in the series always having happy endings available. To some extent this was a fault of the P/R system; or rather, molding the game world so that being a Paragon always works. Letting the player do all LMs for free before the SM was also a problem. So I agree there's a problem, but I think the problem is with ME2, and to a lesser extent with ME1. I've always suspected that Bio simply didn't realize how thoroughly they'd deviated from the vision expressed in the "distress call" trailer. They thought ME was about making hard choices when it was actually about avoiding them.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 janvier 2014 - 09:34 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Missed this the other day.

I suppose the super-short version is that Bio'd be better off without fans who demand always having a happy ending available, and without fans who demand that following deontological ("Paragon") morality always works. It's a constricting vision of what games can be, and an unnecessary limitation. (It's not like The Last of Us failed or anything, so I don't see the sales impact of writing you guys off as being too large)

Of course, this is not much of an answer to KLGChaos' point about previous choices in the series always having happy endings available. To some extent this was a fault of the P/R system; or rather, molding the game world so that being a Paragon always works. Letting the player do all LMs for free before the SM was also a problem. So I agree there's a problem, but I think the problem is with ME2, and to a lesser extent with ME1. I've always suspected that Bio simply didn't realize how thoroughly they'd deviated from the vision expressed in the "distress call" trailer. They thought ME was about making hard choices when it was actually about avoiding them.

Then what is the pont of being given choices if you have only consequences and no benefits?  What's the point of choosing between various colors degrees of suckage?
 If I want to  that, I just have to wait until Election Day <_<

The "cruel and unfortunate truth" is that in general people actually like happy endings.  Not guaranteed as such, but the knowledge that putting enough effort into a project will see the player rewarded.  That's part of the game aspect of a Role Playing Game. 

Nor am I talking about a "golden ending" one which is clearly superior to the others.  Different "good" endings can and should have different rewards (See Dragon Age Origins).  Paragon and Renegade could, indeed should have differences in what is a good outcome.  

And fyi, The Last of Us is not an rpg that promised choices or agency.  It's just an action game where you play a character not your own.  There are no chocies or consequences.  The stroy is completely on rails.