232 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

In ME3 they introduce a fix from on-high that is largely unrelated to anything we found in ME2 thus making ME2 a waste in terms of contributing to the overall arch of the story.

 

This is really the big thing. In ME2, the single most important event that actually occurs, other than Shepard's resurrection I suppose, is the destruction of the Alpha Relay, and Shepard doesn't even have to be the one to do this. Not even neutralizing the Collector Base really truly solved any problems, because even if that reaper's construction was completed, it would have just been one among the many reapers that were coming anyway, and there are still Collectors operating around the galaxy.

[angol fear]

@Alamar2078; I didn't want an exhaustive answer. I just wanted to see if you rely on your own opinion and the way to see Mass Effect or on other's opinion and the way they see it. "Narrative failure" and problem of "structure", it sounds like a real criticism, but Smudboy and the other on youtube aren't critics.

[Alamar2078]

@Angel Fear:  I learned a long time ago to take away pieces of wisdom [nuggets] wherever they are presented.  So it doesn't necessarily matter who it is that makes a statement -- what matters is if there is a nugget of "truth" or some "wisdom" that you can take away from whoever is speaking.

 

So while some misc. YouTubers may make videos and they're not professionals that doesn't mean that they don't have some valid points.  Your job [my job] is to incorporate any unrecognized truths or bits of wisdom into our world view so it is more complete and allows us to make more informed decisions & statements later on.

 

So while I didn't initially criticize the story structure and how the earlier events in the story didn't follow each other to make the ending not just fitting but logically required doesn't mean that it's not true.  Oddly this is why I largely contend that there isn't much that can be done to fix the endings because the rest of the story up to that point doesn't do a good enough job of supporting ANY set of endings that are out there.

[Ithurael]

@Alamar2078; I didn't want an exhaustive answer. I just wanted to see if you rely on your own opinion and the way to see Mass Effect or on other's opinion and the way they see it. "Narrative failure" and problem of "structure", it sounds like a real criticism, but Smudboy and the other on youtube aren't critics.

 

How are smudboy, jahns, and mrbtounge NOT critics?

 

Here is the definition of critic:

1-a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something

2-a person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, especially one who does so professionally.

SOURCE:https://www.google.c...ox-a&channel=sb

 

Now....I personally look at the second definiton as opposed to the first as a critic is know for 'critiqueing' things. Be they stories, gameplay, food, clothes, etc

 

So, how are those 'youtubers' not critics? Is it because you don't think they do what they do professionally?

 

What is the definition of professional?

define:professional

1-of, relating to, or connected with a profession.

2-(of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.

 

SOURCE: https://www.google.c...ne:professional

 

Believe it or not youtubers do make money off of the videos they make (such as Jahns and Smudboy) that fits a paid occupation. I am not even sure if it is their main one as I have never researched that far into their personal life.

 

And if you want to argue: "oh that isn't their MAIN profession thus they are not a critic" well...I am sorry to say that even the fim critic HULK has another job working in Hollywood:

 

"Little is known of FILM CRIT HULK’s secret identity (he has some sort of long-term position at a major studio and when publishing his recent Top 10 list he disclosed if he knew anyone involved with his favorite movies)"

SOURCE: http://the-lfb.com/2...film-crit-hulk/

 

So again...what makes a critic a critic...to you?

[Alamar2078]

I didn't want to get into the storm about who is a "real critic" and who is not.  What I personally believe is that we should use our own individual judgement to decide if the points being brought up are valid or not.  If you happen to find any truths then it's your duty to incorporate that into your world view / opinion / etc. so you can improve yourself and be able to make more sound judgements in the future.

 

It's OK if this is an iterative process.  Walking before you run is perfectly fine.  The important part is that you strive to improve yourself, your views, etc.

[Ithurael]

I didn't want to get into the storm about who is a "real critic" and who is not.  What I personally believe is that we should use our own individual judgement to decide if the points being brought up are valid or not.  If you happen to find any truths then it's your duty to incorporate that into your world view / opinion / etc. so you can improve yourself and be able to make more sound judgements in the future.

 

It's OK if this is an iterative process.  Walking before you run is perfectly fine.  The important part is that you strive to improve yourself, your views, etc.

 

While I do think it is up to the person in the end, there are correct ways tell a story and incorrect ways to tell a story. If the main character just turns into a lizard man and it is never explained why...you lose the willing participation of your audience. Sure, with enough headcanon you can fix the issue.

 

My query was more to anglo anyway. It seemed he/she was trying to 'poison the well' by discretiting any negative criticism of ME3 (and its ending) because those youtube critics weren't critics because of reasons that exist only to him/her.

[Alamar2078]

I understand what you're getting at.  I was just trying to head off the argument by stating that it doesn't matter who makes criticisms ... what matters is if there are any truths behind that or anything we can use to build upon.

 

As for story telling I don't necessarily mind if an author departs from the classical formula as long as they don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  They have to balance the dramatic reasons for departing from the standard formula against internal consistency, suspension of disbelief, etc. otherwise the story they are trying to tell will suffer for it.

[Reorte]

As for story telling I don't necessarily mind if an author departs from the classical formula as long as they don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  They have to balance the dramatic reasons for departing from the standard formula against internal consistency, suspension of disbelief, etc. otherwise the story they are trying to tell will suffer for it.

Something every story needs to be careful of. Sticking to established formulae is playing it safe, and to be honest, why not? They work. It's not a bad thing to produce a well-written story to an unoriginal formula. By all means depart from it too but sometimes there seems to be a temptation to be different merely for the sake of it, and to defend things simply for being different without even thinking about whether it stood a chance of working.