I remember when the original Star Wars was released too. My date and I sat in the fourth row. I think we'd smoked a couple joints on the way to the movies. Plot? I don't think we really cared at that point. I think we lit up half-way through, too. I'm not sure though. Maybe it was just a cigarette.
Yeah. I remember when I saw it(1977) when it came out. My grandfather wanted to see the movie with me. I didn't mind. He paid for it and actually enjoyed the movie
.....................snip...................In my understanding - game that makes you think (about game itself and about plot), game that puts you through challenge and moral dilemmas - are mature games. Because for me "mature" word is a synonym of the words "serious" and "responsible".
Jumping breasts, gay pride parades, blood and gore - are not aspects of mature games. Not for me at least.
i believe "adult" term suits these ^ aspects better.
Can't agree more. I would even go as far as saying "Jumping breasts, gay pride parades, blood and gore things" actually make Bioware games less mature due to the fact Bioware overdoes that to the point of irrelevancy.
I would add contrived gender eqaulity(exaclty 50% foot soldiers being female in Dragon Age world) to the list. What is the in-game relevance of this Bioware's propaganda of supporing woman rights movement in real life? Why do we need it in Thedas which is basically a copy-paste of Medieval European Feudalism?
Planescape:Torment, The Witcher 2, Game of Thrones RPG are truely thought-provoking and mature games. On the other hand, recent Bioware games are becoming more juvenile with each series, ME3 hitting the climax of chidishness, and that I'm concerned with.
I think "most people" didn't even stop to think about the 6 month delay and it was 3 years between Sovereign and the invasion anyway. The 6 months was between Arrival DLC and ME3.
Nothing wrong with Omega DLC the idea that people can be influenced by Shepards decisions isn't new at all, in fact that's the idea behind paragon and renegade options. "Most people" don't want a game that resembles real life too closely that would defeat the purpose of playing a sci-fi, fantasy, shooter, RPG that involves giant space monsters that got turned into robots.
There has to be a level of immaturity about things like this it's about taking an idea that you would have had as an older child/younger teen and saying "that would be a cool game" and making it a reality. ME3 wasn't a terrible game it was watered down yes but in the end it's only the last ten minutes of the original endings that took away from the games enjoyment.
ME series is a mature rated(+17) game, but I always feel as though the game is targetting early teens, judging from the qaulity of writing and plots.
Is it just me or does anyone constantly get frustrated by how often ME3 tries to get away with lousy, contrived plots and character motivations that most mature audience will find hard to ignore? Just to name two out of numerous examples..
Sovereign has been plotting to have reapers return to our galaxy for over a thousand years.... Oh wait, reapers can simply travel into our galaxy in 6 months. lol
I've seen many people defending this by saying that Sovereign wanted an element of surprise: Don't be ridiculous. The reapers could wipe out organics with their tentacles tied up their shooting hole if they came thousands of years ealier, and they didn't need any efforts to capture the citadel by force, in addition to the fact that thousands of years of plottings inevitably leads to their plans leaking like it did in ME1. This is a prime example of plot absurdity at its apex.
In DLC Omega, the player's several chocies leads Aria to shift her personality, or rather, she behaves in a cheap way that makes players think that what few insignificant choices they were given duing the DLC were important. For anyone finding this realistic, I advise you to go out and try to influence 6 year old child with a few of your behaviors and words. You will find it quite difficult, but apparently Shepard can change a thousand years old ruler's character over a course of few hours. This is a prime example of character absurdity at its apex.
I wouldn't have minded if such instances were presented in rare occasion, but that's not the case, is it? I am being a bit over dramatic, but the honest feeling I had when playing ME3 was that my intellience is being insulted at every cornor.
The reason of my concern is that Bioware in the past has repeated emphasized how ME series is an adult Scifi with dark and realistic settings for mature audience. I think they have misspoke early teen audience for mature audience. If Bioware can't produce mature plots and writing, they might as well make the game P-12 with reduced violence and sex for the sake of integratiy.
I've just realized that I'd only written positive feedbacks until the release of ME3 and only negative feedbacks ever since. There were some plot holes in ME1 and ME2(such as audio file being taken as valid evidence while a witness being dismissed), but those were neither as blatant or as frequet as plot holes and absurdity in ME3; the ending is not even the major issue. The whole ME3 reaks of stinking plot holes and contrived narrative and characters.
I'm hoping Bioware learned somethign from ME3, and reflect their lessons on ME4 and DA:I. ME3 is still a great game in terms of arts, being a light weight RPG/shooter hybrid, combat, and choices in previous titles impacting the game. However, there are just too many, too absurd glaring issues present all over the narrative like mold growing on mushroom topping on otherwise exellent Pizza. I simply can't eat that no matter how tasty the pizza is. Even if characters such as Mordin and Garrus are awesome, if the narrative is inexplicably chidish, I can't appreciate the character as whole because none of the settings feel real.
Please, make the writing, narrative, dialogue, choices, and plots more mature. You don't need violence and sex to make mature plots. You can still fulfill needs of gamers who don't give crap about stories as long as they could shoot things up with well written narrative. Up the quality of writing with next games, or disappointed mature gamers will turn away from Bioware games.
In general, I agree with you. Particularly, I like much more the "RPG" side and not so much "shooter" side. I think Mass Effect was very successful because it was attractive for an audience (not so much numerously which plays some "gereric games") but an audience who would appreciate something new in RPG genre.
But Bioware turned Mass Effect 3 generic, a little (See mutiplayer, for example) and improves shooter maybe to please more customers.
So, unfortunately, that was a comercial question... It corrupted in part the better the Bioware could do.
In other way I have nothing against the sex and some violence scenes, but I agree stories might be even more well written. I think Mass Effect 3 was needing an expansion to do the right thing, not only some DLCs. An expansion with dialogs coherent with/ inserted in the story of each squad character - not reduced a quick sentences between a mission and other one. For example, we might have a mission in Vancouver, if we helped the Kaidan Alenko's parents and, in the same way, to have missions to help Normandy team.
Now lets not give too much of a pass to the other games.
Renegade in ME1 was often ridiculous and the treatment of the Council was poor in both ME1 and ME2. The interactions with them in ME1 are painfully bad and quite juvenile and then ME2 bastardizes them (and the Alliance) to prop up Shepard working with Cerberus.
Now lets not give too much of a pass to the other games.
I would add contrived gender eqaulity(exaclty 50% foot soldiers being female in Dragon Age world) to the list. What is the in-game relevance of this Bioware's propaganda of supporing woman rights movement in real life? Why do we need it in Thedas which is basically a copy-paste of Medieval European Feudalism?
OP, it seems we didn't play the same game. Mass Effect trilogy is probably the most mature game that exist and will exist for a long time. It's not because the story itself is based on action writing that it's targeting teen audience. I mean, sure, if the writing of the game is ignored, if the aesthetic is ignore too, if the meaning of the trilogy is ignored... yes, Mass Effect seems to be for the teenagers, but the game is actually one of the very few games for "real" adults.
Can't agree more. I would even go as far as saying "Jumping breasts, gay pride parades, blood and gore things" actually make Bioware games less mature due to the fact Bioware overdoes that to the point of irrelevancy.
Gay pride parades? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't sound good.
Gay pride parades? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't sound good.
A lot of countries have women serving on the front lines of wars they make good soldiers. Ask the Kurds in Syria they had their women on the frontlines against ISIS (and winning for a good time till northern Iraq collapsed) it's getting more and more common.
I don't see why you would complain about too much women and too many "gay pride parades" in the one post either you'd have nobody left to romance if they removed both.
A lot of countries have women serving on the front lines of wars they make good soldiers. Ask the Kurds in Syria they had their women on the frontlines against ISIS (and winning for a good time till northern Iraq collapsed) it's getting more and more common.
I don't see why you would complain about too much women and too many "gay pride parades" in the one post either you'd have nobody left to romance if they removed both.
I understand what you meant it's a common viewpoint and one that made sense for some cultures but doesn't always apply as a blanket rule though. Africa and Celtic Europe really stand out for their female warriors in the past, it's not a common thing for other cultures. But that's another topic and i'd better stop before I get too into the subject 
I understand what you meant it's a common viewpoint and one that made sense for some cultures but doesn't always apply as a blanket rule though. Africa and Celtic Europe really stand out for their female warriors in the past, it's not a common thing for other cultures. But that's another topic and i'd better stop before I get too into the subject
I know of no instance of any society that fielded all women squadrons unless they were on the brink of annihilation.
Thats because all the ones that tried it died out and were never heard from again
Women don't fight on the front lines of war for a very simple reason. Imagine 2 countries, A and B, with both a population of a 1000 men and a 1000 women. There's gender inequality in both societies; only one gender fights in the war. They fight each other until the bitter end: only 1 combattant is left standing after the dust clears.
This is 'not a problem' if the males conduct war. 1 man is left standing with 2000 women left to repopulate. Again, this is not a problem, he might get real tired, but that's it. The male could have all females pregnant before the first child is born.
But if the women conduct war and the males sit on the side, it is a problem. 1 woman is left with 2000 men. She can only get pregnant once and has to bring it to terms before she can again (and usually in humans, she only carries one young each term. Though I personally know a woman who births 2 babies by default, but that's an outlier), not get 2000 women pregnant like the male can. Too many female deaths in a society and it will be destroyed or crippled severely.
Women not fighting in wars is not because they're weak, it's because their deaths weigh so much more on society. They provide the upper limit of population growth, not men.
Women are weak and that's why they don't fight wars in most cases. It's just a fact.
Showing a gay couple as normal human beings is like a gay pride parade to some people.
Do normal human beings consist of majority of bisexual, minority of heterosexual, and no homosexual as in DA2?
Do normal human beings frequently switch their sexual orientation from hetero to bi as in the change from ME2 to ME3?
You are missing the point, and it's pointless to attack me when I am not a homophobe.
Gay pride parades? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't sound good.
Homosexual options(aside from monogender species) weren't present in ME1. Homosexual rights activists had constantly requested Bioware to include homosexual romances to 'show how far the homosexual rights have come'. ME3 turned straight characters into homosexual and DA2 made most of companions bi-sexual. It would have been ok, had it been consistant from the first title or not as overdone as making most companions bi as in DA2.
That's like making 1/3 of all chracters in the game Asians, 1/3 Black, 1/3 white in order to support racial equality, or worse, changing character's ethnicity in sequel to encourage the movement against racial discrimination. I don't want that kind of nonsense.
Let's leave it at that. First I have nothing against ****** or bi sexuals and second It's getting off topic.
Boudica was the most famous but there were several celtic female leaders and soldiers most from the Germanic tribes. As far as entire female armies yes they existed there was a small force in Greece (eventually wiped out) and there was an entire African tribe in the Uganda Tanzania area comprised of female warriors, the men stayed home and cooked and looked after the children.
Edit: It's also disputed as to wether or not Boudica had her own entourage of female 'bodyguards' who fought alongside her I've seen it presented as fact before but I can't say with certainty. It's been a long time since I've actually delved into the subject.
Women are weak and that's why they don't fight wars in most cases. It's just a fact.
Do normal human beings consist of majority of bisexual, minority of heterosexual, and no homosexual as in DA2?
Do normal human beings frequently switch their sexual orientation from hetero to bi as in the change from ME2 to ME3?
You are missing the point, and it's pointless to attack me when I am not a homophobe.
Women simply have a different skillset when it comes to warfare they aren't 'weak' one of the soviets best snipers in WW2 was a woman with 309 confirmed kills including 36 enemy snipers. She was good enough to replace her battalion commander after he was KIA. She was later wounded and refused to leave the battlefield, she's the Garrus Vakarian of the real world when you think about it.
No. They might be weaker, but bigger numbers, especially back in ancient times, could mean the difference between a victory or defeat. Tt would make sense to mobilize your entire population for war, including the females, but this never happened. (unless they were on the brink of defeat/annihilation)
Even in Nazi Germany, where every male, male infant and dog was mobilized for war the women stayed at home, and were rewarded medals for giving birth to as much children as possible.
http://en.wikipedia....e_German_Mother
The power of women in war lies in their ability to replenish the troops/population and revitalize the country after the war, their strength or weakness in battle has nothing to do with it.
I only missed the point because you chose to speak of a gay pride parade. Not my fault that you come of as a raging homophobe.
10% of population is about the maximum a country can mobilize in a total war as there needs to be a constant supply of ammunition, clothes, weapons, armors, and other professions to run a coutry; WWI saw 5% mobilization in most countries; Soviet Union in WWII mobilized just a bit above 10% which still brought them to a blink of collapse due to strained resources and lack of manpower. In medieval and ancient time, the rate was even much lower due to administrative inefficiency. Roman Empire's army at its apex numbered 0.5~1% of its whole population.
Women's absnece in war has nothing to do with their reproductive abiltiy. Not at all. In feudalism you coulnd't conscript more than 5% of population even if you wanted to, let alone 100% as you insisted; hence men fights in stead of weaker women.
I majored in history, by the way.
I only missed the point because you chose to speak of a gay pride parade. Not my fault that you come of as a raging homophobe.
If you have looked closesly, you would have noticed quotation marks. I didn't choose to speak of a gay pride parade. I directly quoted other person's reply, in order to say that Bioware's public image control impacting the in-game world is not good.
Women simply have a different skillset when it comes to warfare they aren't 'weak' one of the soviets best snipers in WW2 was a woman with 309 confirmed kills including 36 enemy snipers. She was good enough to replace her battalion commander after he was KIA. She was later wounded and refused to leave the battlefield, she's the Garrus Vakarian of the real world when you think about it.
A bull occassionaly kills a lion that try to hunt it. I would still say a bull is weaker than a lion. What does few exceptions, which is present in any cases, prove? Men are physically stronger in average and that is it. If Bioware wanted to force the idea that men and women are physically equal, Bioware shouldn't have made female body like that of skinny super models without a trace of muscle.
Bad analogy a bull is much stronger than a lion which is why it takes several of them to bring one down. Also Lionesses are almost exclusively the hunters in a lion pride the males do little if anything at all.
10% of population is about the maximum a country can mobilize in a total war as there needs to be a constant supply of ammunition, clothes, weapons, armors, and other professions to run a coutry; WWI saw 5% mobilization in most countries; Soviet Union in WWII mobilized just a bit above 10% which still brought them to a blink of collapse due to strained resources and lack of manpower. In medieval and ancient time, the rate was even much lower due to administrative inefficiency. Roman Empire's army at its apex numbered 0.5~1% of its whole population.
Women's absnece in war has nothing to do with their reproductive abiltiy. Not at all. In feudalism you coulnd't conscript more than 5% of population even if you wanted to, let alone 100% as you insisted; hence men fights in stead of weaker women.
I majored in history, by the way.
Bad analogy a bull is much stronger than a lion which is why it takes several of them to bring one down. Also Lionesses are almost exclusively the hunters in a lion pride the males do little if anything at all.
I know a bull is stronger strength-wise but lion is stronger in its combat prowess. The word lion can be used comprehensively to call both male and female lions.
And my point still stands. That is a rather digressive nitpicking.
Retour en haut