Lol
please don't name drop TLoU. That **** isn't anything but an overhyped tps with a story that doesn't blaze any trails, just treads the path Bioware has been down before. It is literally praised for the same exact things ME3 is criticized for.
That's what I've said earlier : "Singing in the rain" is one of the most impressive and one of the best film ever made. Happy ending or not I don't care if it's consistent (and Mass Effect is consistent in its writing). You can dislike the way it is but using another game that has nothing to do with ME to say how it should have ended, that's disappointing. Mass Effect has always been unrealistic and had a lot of themes, interesting thoughts that only make sense with this ending. After that it's just matter of taste. (and the ending of Last of us is far from being complicated).
I'm not saying that ME3 should have ended the way TLU did, i am merely making a confront between two endings that had the same purpose: complexity.
I strongly disagree on the bolded part; Last of Us' ending has so many layers that you have go trough each one of them analyze every part of it, the kind of thing where you can't point the finger and say who was right and who was wrong.
ME3's ending just feels lazy or forced or both, my opinion 
I'm not sure why not knowing who is right and who's wrong is praised as such a deep and meaningful thing.
The idea is to promote discussion or reflection on a subject, not to shovel-feed one's own answers to their audience. Some writers manage this better than others. That's not to say that writers can't take a stance in fiction (duh), but it's a bit dogmatic to think a structure of binary good-vs-evil is the only way good stories are told.I'm not sure why not knowing who is right and who's wrong is praised as such a deep and meaningful thing.
Is it?
Are you sure?
It seems to me the general mantra of 'Nobody's right, nobody's wrong' only serves to promote discussion so long as it doesn't go anywhere. Because the discussion must inevitably end right back where it started: With everyone shrugging their shoulders and saying 'We don't know.'
After all, the idea of 'Nobody's right, Nobody's wrong' is a moral "force-fed," as you say, like any other. The person who actually is wrong under such an idea is the person who says 'This is right' or 'This is wrong.' Or 'these are unequally right/wrong.'
You have chosen between art and entertainment. You have chosen pure entertainment. Technically, every story can have happy ending when you ignore the writing.
Waitaminute...I bought a game for entertainment!!!!? 
Daaaang, what was I thinking? 
But on a more serious note, ME3 also demonstrates that any story can have a tragic ending if you're willing to throw out the other 2.9 installments
You have chosen between art and entertainment. You have chosen pure entertainment. Technically, every story can have happy ending when you ignore the writing.
Is there a difference between the two, art and entertainment? My confusion may stem from the notion that by themselves, just using those two words are fairly abstract.
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion when the whole idea behind such stories is for people to reach their own conclusions based on their own judgement of the situation presented to them. Or is your objection grounded in the fact that people come away from such stories with different conclusions in the first place?Is it?
Are you sure?
It seems to me the general mantra of 'Nobody's right, nobody's wrong' only serves to promote discussion so long as it doesn't go anywhere. Because the discussion must inevitably end right back where it started: With everyone shrugging their shoulders and saying 'We don't know.'
After all, the idea of 'Nobody's right, Nobody's wrong' is a moral "force-fed," as you say, like any other. The person who actually is wrong under such an idea is the person who says 'This is right' or 'This is wrong.' Or 'these are unequally right/wrong.'
I'm reminded of arguments concerning creationism and evolution. People say 'Why not include both? If the evidence for evolution is so compelling, the reader should be able to decide so on his own. What harm is there in including creationism alongside it? Present the evidence, and let the reader decide what's right!"
It's an elegant argument. Can you spot the flaw in it?
I'm reminded of arguments concerning creationism and evolution. People say 'Why not include both? If the evidence for evolution is so compelling, the reader should be able to decide so on his own. What harm is there in including creationism alongside it? Present the evidence, and let the reader decide what's right!"
It's an elegant argument. Can you spot the flaw in it?
My forehead is getting a callous from all the facepalming and facedesking you cause me to do
Is it?
Are you sure?
It seems to me the general mantra of 'Nobody's right, nobody's wrong' only serves to promote discussion so long as it doesn't go anywhere. Because the discussion must inevitably end right back where it started: With everyone shrugging their shoulders and saying 'We don't know.'
After all, the idea of 'Nobody's right, Nobody's wrong' is a moral "force-fed," as you say, like any other. The person who actually is wrong under such an idea is the person who says 'This is right' or 'This is wrong.' Or 'these are unequally right/wrong.'
Why do you think things like politics or fiction exist in the first place? Different people with different life experiences reach different conclusions about the world around them. Some are demonstrably wrong, most are revised over time as new facts become available, but you'd have to be pretty damned arrogant to think you have all the answers. There's a reason why certain ethical debates have endured for centuries in different forms. There's a reason why certain topics on this forum are discussed time after time after time. Real life isn't simple; why should fiction be?I'm reminded of arguments concerning creationism and evolution. People say 'Why not include both? If the evidence for evolution is so compelling, the reader should be able to decide so on his own. What harm is there in including creationism alongside it? Present the evidence, and let the reader decide what's right!"
It's an elegant argument. Can you spot the flaw in it?
While you are at it David, watch Game of Thrones and House of Cards and let me know what you think of the following characters
-Eddard and Robb Stark
-Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion Lannister
-Petyr Baelish
-Theon Greyjoy
-Francis Underwood
-President Garret Walker
-Lucas whatshisname
While you are at it David, watch Game of Thrones and House of Cards and let me know what you think of the following characters
-Eddard and Robb Stark
-Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion Lannister
-Petyr Baelish
-Theon Greyjoy
-Francis Underwood
-President Garret Walker
-Lucas whatshisname
That seems a little mean. David might die if he drifts too far out side of his comfort zone.
While you are at it David, watch Game of Thrones and House of Cards and let me know what you think of the following characters
-Eddard and Robb Stark
-Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion Lannister
-Petyr Baelish
-Theon Greyjoy
-Francis Underwood
-President Garret Walker
-Lucas whatshisname
He said himself he doesn't watch/read/play anything that doesn't agree with his morals, so I highly doubt he'll watch Game of Thrones, given its take on heroism.
Is there a difference between the two, art and entertainment? My confusion may stem from the notion that by themselves, just using those two words are fairly abstract.
Actually they are not really opposed, but sometimes we have to do that. My answer (because you take what I said out of context) was using entertainment in a pejorative way because it had been decided by some people here that art was blahblahblah (see my first intervention).
Actually cinema and video gaming are both art and entertainment but when it's the player satisfaction that is intended in the first place instead of writing a story, you're making bad entertainment (which are actually popular!) because your writing is based on clichés.
He said himself he doesn't watch/read/play anything that doesn't agree with his morals, so I highly doubt he'll watch Game of Thrones, given its take on heroism.
It has several heroic characters who fight for what is right and such, sure they happen to end up adorning spikes...
But Stannis is still kicking
Do you have an answer as to why that argument is flawed?
I have no idea whatsoever why you and apparently others are so convinced that the story not shrugging it's shoulders with 'Nobody's right, nobody's wrong' makes things 'simple.' It seems to me the most 'simple' stance would be one of thoughtless adherence to 'there is no right answer.'
In fact, such a stance seems to be one that demands the cessation of thought and debate entirely, since by definition thought or debate can never lead anywhere of value under such an 'ideal.'
Don't think outside the box! It's safer in there.He said himself he doesn't watch/read/play anything that doesn't agree with his morals, so I highly doubt he'll watch Game of Thrones, given its take on heroism.
In fact, such a stance seems to be done that demands the cessation of thought and debate entirely, since by definition thought or debate can never lead anywhere of value under such an 'ideal.'
oh irony
Do you have an answer as to why that argument is flawed?
I have no idea whatsoever why you and apparently others are so convinced that the story not shrugging it's shoulders with 'Nobody's right, nobody's wrong' makes things 'simple.' It seems to me the most 'simple' stance would be one of thoughtless adherence to 'there is no right answer.'
In fact, such a stance seems to be one that demands the cessation of thought and debate entirely, since by definition thought or debate can never lead anywhere of value under such an 'ideal.'
Tell me David, has the admittance of neuroscientists that we don't really know how the brain works led to the cessation of thought, or the flowering of theories and experiments?
And actually, very few people subscribe to the "nobody's wrong" ethical system. But a well-written story will provide compelling reasons for why each side did what it did.
It has several heroic characters who fight for what is right and such, sure they happen to end up adorning spikes...
But Stannis is still kicking
Well, Starks are too honorable for their own good. In any other book/show they would rock 
Robert and Rhagar are fascinating figures too (we don't know much about the latter, but still...)
Tell me David, has the admittance of neuroscientists that we don't really know how the brain works led to the cessation of thought, or the flowering of theories and experiments?
We don't know how the brain works.
What we do know is that it does work.
Well, Starks are too honorable for their own good. In any other book/show they would rock
Robert and Rhagar are fascinating figures too (we don't know much about the latter, but still...)
As far as I am concerned Rhaegar is wannabe Paris who couldn't even kill Achilles
We don't know how the brain works.
What we do know is that it does work.
Just like we know that falling from orbit and shutting off oxygen to the brain are not serious issues
Retour en haut