I'll take Shepard as a brick if he can at lesat be my brick. Unlike ME3 where I was told "You can have the Blue Shepard or you can have the Red Shepard"
Ideally, we should have had options where we could decide how Shepard feels in a given situation.
I liked ME1 Shepard best, then ME3 Shepard...ME2 Shepard was my least favorite. No matter how hard I tried, I felt like she was nothing but an emotionless hollow shell with a gun throughout most of the vanilla game (LotSB was good). Shepard died! Meh...I got better. The reunion scenes with Liara (or Horizon if you romanced the VS)..horrible.
ME3 Shepard felt certainly more alive to me, but some things like her Earth centrism irritated me. The dreams on the other hand didn't bother me much, I even liked the 'background' voices. ME1 Shepard was a bit wooden, but the RPG opportunities to define Shepard were better, I think.
I liked ME1 Shepard best, then ME3 Shepard...ME2 Shepard was my least favorite. No matter how hard I tried, I felt like she was nothing but an emotionless hollow shell with a gun throughout most of the vanilla game (LotSB was good). Shepard died! Meh...I got better. The reunion scenes with Liara (or Horizon if you romanced the VS)..horrible.
ME3 Shepard felt certainly more alive to me, but some things like her Earth centrism irritated me. The dreams on the other hand didn't bother me much, I even liked the 'background' voices. ME1 Shepard was a bit wooden, but the RPG opportunities to define Shepard were better, I think.
ME2 Shep has a lot wrong with him. For me the Cerberus railroad and inability to call out TIM on any of his crap, made Shepard look at best like a gullible idiot. I think that's where most of my animosity towards him originates from.
I think Mr. Weekes, and a lot of the devs, was really just trying to understand what was going on with the fans. Criticisms of the story are fine and all, but nothing in this game deserved a "backlash" - something more, heh, emotional was clearly at work.
One thing I remember a lot of was a sense that "Betrayal!" and "Bioware did this to me!" from the forums. I don't know what to say about that, other than I never could take it seriously.
Well when you get fed hype flavored bullshit for months telling you to expect the opposite, you arent exactly gonna say "oh, you!"
This was the biggest lie (may even be the only one). Didn't affect my love for the game, but when you market something like this, at least make sure that the scene you show actually plays that way.
On today of all days. It still amazes me that this isn't apparent, at least to someone else?
For me, it isn't that some fictional computer game character called Shephard was deleted at the end of a trivial story that in ten years no one will know about.
For me, it's that the chartacter, which we were supposed to invest in, died in captiulation. They gave up. They agreed with the entity we had been fighting for so long. They folded. In fact the only outcome where they didn't was the refuse where they died anyway.
Agree with me or die. Tough.
So basically, Shephard is the biggest loser in history. They folded (and propbably died) or resisted (and defintely died). But either way - everyone else also died. (Or was modified or is now controlled by a nutjob AI that wants to kill everyone anyway).
As much as I liked the writing on the "small scale" I thin he missed the point - at least for me. I didn't hate ME3 because (my) shepherd dies at the end. I hated mass effect 3 because I felt like the Reapers stil won at the end.
... For me, it's that the chartacter, which we were supposed to invest in, died in captiulation. They gave up. They agreed with the entity we had been fighting for so long. They folded. In fact the only outcome where they didn't was the refuse where they died anyway. ...
This is actually an old criticism of the plot.
For myself, I can only say that my Shepards have no problem accepting the problem described by the Catalyst because it is adequately supported by the trilogy, and even if my Shepards could not accept the problem, Destroy (fire the weapon we built), Control (either Shepard takes control of the Reapers, or spawns an AI in the Commander's image that does the same), and Synthesis (use the Reapers power to advance all life) are only "capitulation" when people want to argue for a different ending - usually one where they can destroy the Reapers without consequence.
Well obviously, but that happens in every community, for every valid criticism there will be ten extremely exaggerating or upset fans. That being said it's been more than two years, in that time you'd think they'd have been able to filter out the exaggerations from the legitimate criticisms
Implying that the emotional responses aren't valid. Considering that emotion is a very large part of what makes a work of fiction (or music, or painting - I hate to use the word "art" after all of hoo-hah surrounding that, but it's a valid one) a success or failure I'd say that ignoring those who got a pretty negative emotional response to the game and made that clear is sticking you fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I'm not listening". A story that fitted together perfectly, no logical holes or mis-characterisation, but with all the emotion of a plank of wood would be an epic failure as a work of fiction after all.
Try googling "Mass Effect 3 Shitstorm" so that you can educate yourself. It might help you with your denial trip. Have fun.
Oh, so you take this back?
Fans: The game SUCKED, especially the atrocious ending.
Go read the review thread, where after page 4 or so everyone started giving two scores because their love of the game conflicted so heavily with their hate of the ending. Next time don't make wild generalizations about what "Fans" thought of the game as a whole.
I liked ME1 Shepard best, then ME3 Shepard...ME2 Shepard was my least favorite. No matter how hard I tried, I felt like she was nothing but an emotionless hollow shell with a gun throughout most of the vanilla game (LotSB was good). Shepard died! Meh...I got better. The reunion scenes with Liara (or Horizon if you romanced the VS)..horrible.
ME3 Shepard felt certainly more alive to me, but some things like her Earth centrism irritated me. The dreams on the other hand didn't bother me much, I even liked the 'background' voices. ME1 Shepard was a bit wooden, but the RPG opportunities to define Shepard were better, I think.
And this is why I said that ME2 was like an Arnold movie. It was an interactive action sci-fi movie. Renegon Shepard was the best way to play ME2 for that atmosphere. Not a complete assh*le, but definitely not missing out on any of the renegade interrupts. Schwarzenegger should have VAd male Shepard for lols.
And this is why I said that ME2 was like an Arnold movie. It was an interactive action sci-fi movie. Renegon Shepard was the best way to play ME2 for that atmosphere. Not a complete assh*le, but definitely not missing out on any of the renegade interrupts. Schwarzenegger should have VAd male Shepard for lols.
"A boolet in the head solves evrything."
"I know that now."
*explosion knocks shep through a hole in the Normandy SR-1*
Joker (from the escape pod): Shepard!!!
Shep (spaced): I'll be back.
sH0tgUn jUliA, Reorte, KrrKs et 1 autre aiment ceci
Never had a problem with Shepard dying, my problem tbh was from jumping into Earth with the fleet to i picked a color it was all crap, the only decent bit was the actual music leading upto the fleet jumping in, everything was very mediocre at best.
I always say if only they had made the final battle from when you jump in till you beam up hell of a epic the choice would have been more bearable, the final battle on Earth should have seen all war assets in action, heavy cinematic cutscenes and one hell of a battle, but all wee got was a bland weak corridor ended by a color choice.
I was upset because come the end i got the feeling the developers just couldnt be bothered anymore
EDIT: I always felt ME was too ambitious for its time and believe it was limited by tech, i'd be really really interested in what the original ME1 team would do now, not with the knowledge of a trilogy behind them, but with the tech thats available, i honestly believe we would have seen a different trilogy
Implying that the emotional responses aren't valid. Considering that emotion is a very large part of what makes a work of fiction (or music, or painting - I hate to use the word "art" after all of hoo-hah surrounding that, but it's a valid one) a success or failure I'd say that ignoring those who got a pretty negative emotional response to the game and made that clear is sticking you fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I'm not listening". A story that fitted together perfectly, no logical holes or mis-characterisation, but with all the emotion of a plank of wood would be an epic failure as a work of fiction after all.
Actually, people use to oppose emotion and reason. There's the emotion part and the intellectual part. That's not true. Emotions change just like reason change. Emotional and intellectual part work together.
Let's take music, you may consider that the biggest part is emotional, but Bach, one of the greatest composer ever, made a very intellectual music. The structure of its music is still analyzed now. When you listen passively you can't see the intellectual part. If you're a "expert listener" (maybe there's better words, but nothing else come to my mind), you'll make a real analysis, and if you have the score, it's impressive how intellectual it is. The same can be done on Mozart, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Dusapin...
Emotional response is valid as an emotional response. People can like or dislike it doesn't change the quality. Quality has nothing to do with emotion. There's always emotion in a piece of work. (2001, a space odyssey has got emotion.). The problem is that the reception's emotional response is based on expectations, not on understanding. It's a very egoistic way of seeing : you have to recognize what you already know to have emotional response, so you want something that is close to what you already know. That emotional response means that people want the fiction to be done for them. Understand is the opposite : it's going in the direction of the fiction, to go in its way not against it.
edit : I'll just add that misunderstanding that leads to hate (a violent emotion) is an emotional response too. But it's reception failure not creation's failure.
Be careful you don't end up with the same misconception David Cage has, that every scene in a work of fiction should have emotion in it. Beyond Two Souls was at times just meaningless pandering with the protagonist litter ally just screaming nonsense just to make it feel emotional, but without any reason it becomes cringe worthy, dumb, and not worth watching.
I think Mac did the same thing with the Joker argument for example. Shepard overreacts when joker makes a joke that's out of line after Thessia. What were most people's response? It was "why can't we just agree that it is funny or shrug it off with a warning?" And again, how did many react to the intro of the game? Not very well, because there was so much nonsense and forced emotion.
Actually, people use to oppose emotion and reason. There's the emotion part and the intellectual part. That's not true. Emotions change just like reason change. Emotional and intellectual part work together. Let's take music, you may consider that the biggest part is emotional, but Bach, one of the greatest composer ever, made a very intellectual music. The structure of its music is still analyzed now. When you listen passively you can't see the intellectual part. If you're a "expert listener" (maybe there's better words, but nothing else come to my mind), you'll make a real analysis, and if you have the score, it's impressive how intellectual it is.
Yet you can still get pleasure out of Bach's music and be completely ignorant of any of the technical aspects. His music works both emotionally and intellectually. And with music, like fiction, it's entirely possible to have pieces that work one way and not the other. Getting both right produces the best works.
edit : I'll just add that misunderstanding that leads to hate (a violent emotion) is an emotional response too. But it's reception failure not creation's failure.
You cannot make that claim as a blanket statement. That's the creator denying responsibility. If it's the creation's success if it produces positive emotions then it's also their failure if it produces negative ones. Anyone not prepared to accept that it cuts both ways is simply inconsistent.
Yet you can still get pleasure out of Bach's music and be completely ignorant of any of the technical aspects. His music works both emotionally and intellectually. And with music, like fiction, it's entirely possible to have pieces that work one way and not the other. Getting both right produces the best works.
OK, listen to this which is a masterpiece with both emotional and intellectual aspect and tell me what you think about it :
Do you think that anyone who ignore atonal music will find the emotional aspect? (last commentaries of the video are mostly "it's crap")
And if he listens to traditional music, will he feel any emotion?
So no you never ignore the technical aspect to Bach's music because you are educated with music that come from Bach's music and nobody ignore Bach's pieces. It's almost like you already like before you listen to it. Traditional music, music from middle ages, or contemporary music, they aren't written with the same musical language (but they can share the same notes), and there's emotion too. If you ignore these languages, you'll never get pleasure from them.
You cannot make that claim as a blanket statement. That's the creator denying responsibility. If it's the creation's success if it produces positive emotions then it's also their failure if it produces negative ones. Anyone not prepared to accept that it cuts both ways is simply inconsistent.
No, you didn't get what I was saying : HATE! When you come to "hate" a fiction, a music or anything else, you're the one who failed. If you only dislike, then it's ok, because maybe you're right or wrong, it doesn't really matter, you can always step away and see if you're right or wrong. You can dislike and say "I dislike but I know it's a good film / music/ book..."
When you come to hate something, you're the one who failed because you're blinded by your own expectations and you'll never make an opinion outside of it. It will be your emotion of hate that will be the one who decides if it's good or not. You'll refuse any quality. Hate is reception's failure, not creation's.
EDIT: I always felt ME was too ambitious for its time and believe it was limited by tech, i'd be really really interested in what the original ME1 team would do now, not with the knowledge of a trilogy behind them, but with the tech thats available, i honestly believe we would have seen a different trilogy
It was limited by having to run on years old console hardware. Had it been pc exclusive then it probably would have been different.
Doesn't change the fact though does it.
And the first one was, yes. Subsequently it is multi platform. By the time me3 came out the limitations of the game on pc are glaring.
Be careful you don't end up with the same misconception David Cage has, that every scene in a work of fiction should have emotion in it. Beyond Two Souls was at times just meaningless pandering with the protagonist litter ally just screaming nonsense just to make it feel emotional, but without any reason it becomes cringe worthy, dumb, and not worth watching.
I think Mac did the same thing with the Joker argument for example. Shepard overreacts when joker makes a joke that's out of line after Thessia. What were most people's response? It was "why can't we just agree that it is funny or shrug it off with a warning?" And again, how did many react to the intro of the game? Not very well, because there was so much nonsense and forced emotion.
OK, listen to this which is a masterpiece with both emotional and intellectual aspect and tell me what you think about it :
Do you think that anyone who ignore atonal music will find the emotional aspect? (last commentaries of the video are mostly "it's crap")
And if he listens to traditional music, will he feel any emotion?
So no you never ignore the technical aspect to Bach's music because you are educated with music that come from Bach's music and nobody ignore Bach's pieces. It's almost like you already like before you listen to it. Traditional music, music from middle ages, or contemporary music, they aren't written with the same musical language (but they can share the same notes), and there's emotion too. If you ignore these languages, you'll never get pleasure from them.
No, you didn't get what I was saying : HATE! When you come to "hate" a fiction, a music or anything else, you're the one who failed. If you only dislike, then it's ok, because maybe you're right or wrong, it doesn't really matter, you can always step away and see if you're right or wrong. You can dislike and say "I dislike but I know it's a good film / music/ book..."
When you come to hate something, you're the one who failed because you're blinded by your own expectations and you'll never make an opinion outside of it. It will be your emotion of hate that will be the one who decides if it's good or not. You'll refuse any quality. Hate is reception's failure, not creation's.
I listened to it. It did nothing for me. I'm not a fan of Serialism. Never have been. Here's an interesting piece of music....
Different composer. One of my favorites of the 20th Century. It's just a section of a greater work though: Visions de L'Amen.
I don't have time for hate. I disliked the endings because I felt that it failed to evoke the emotional response they were looking for. Don't take me on an emotional roller coaster and then suddenly expect me to flip a switch and go all intellectual. I don't work that way. Most people don't work that way. That's why I hit the destruct button back in March 2012. The writers p*ssed me off. Starbrat p*ssed me off. I wanted the reapers dead when I went up the beam. Now I wanted him dead. And it didn't matter because no matter what I picked the relays were destroyed, so f*ck 'em. Destroy! We have to rebuild anyway, and besides, dead reapers was my mission. I blew up the galaxy on March 22, 2012. Everyone blew up the galaxy in March. It didn't matter. "Releasing the energy of the Crucible will destroy the mass relays." Was anyone even alive besides the Normandy?
Then in July things changed, but what was once seen cannot be unseen.
OK, listen to this which is a masterpiece with both emotional and intellectual aspect and tell me what you think about it :
Do you think that anyone who ignore atonal music will find the emotional aspect? (last commentaries of the video are mostly "it's crap") And if he listens to traditional music, will he feel any emotion?
That's now trying to suggest that they're mutually exclusive. Sorry, strawman. The existence of some works that require the technical understanding to appreciate the nuances that can give rise to the emotion means little in this discussion (although if anything it rather supports my position - it's about more than just the technical).
No, you didn't get what I was saying : HATE! When you come to "hate" a fiction, a music or anything else, you're the one who failed. If you only dislike, then it's ok, because maybe you're right or wrong, it doesn't really matter, you can always step away and see if you're right or wrong. You can dislike and say "I dislike but I know it's a good film / music/ book..." When you come to hate something, you're the one who failed because you're blinded by your own expectations and you'll never make an opinion outside of it. It will be your emotion of hate that will be the one who decides if it's good or not. You'll refuse any quality. Hate is reception's failure, not creation's.
Sorry, that's complete nonsense. Hate is just the far end of dislike. "It's your fault" is the classic cop-out argument. You can dislike something and see some good aspects in it. You can dislike something and see no good aspects in it. You can hate something that has a message you find thoroughly repulsive, or which simply presses all the wrong buttons, and that's an entirely valid response. If you're going to deny the strongest negative responses you also have to deny the strongest positive ones. You appear to be just trying to find excuses instead of reasons to dismiss responses that differ from yours. The existence of daft or ignorant reasons for hating something doesn't preclude the possibility of good ones (and once again the same is true for loving something).
By your argument it would be impossible to hate something if you first encounter it with no expectations. The emotion was caused by something in the work.
Retour en haut
