500 réponses à ce sujet

[TMA LIVE]

Now about Priority Earth, I just finished replaying after EC original came out. I can kind of get why people don't like it, and wanted it changed.

 

I like how it contrasts with the intro, where you see Earth as this bright future society, only to see it turn into a Terminator setting at the end. It's a depressing thing to look at. And the enemies hitting you left and right, you feel overwhelmed, just like the rest of the soldiers on Earth. It's a none stop desperate push into enemy territory. It gets even more overwhelming when the Reapers starts shooting at you, while fighting reaper forces.

 

However, it's clearly rushed, like everything else after Cerberus Base. The Citadel is taken without any explanation as to how, or what happened to anyone on the station. The level itself is very short, and doesn't show off any of those assets you gathered. There's no option to use your past ME2 characters to help out. There's no minigame where you can plan the battle, and control how it plays out (which we know was planned, and later cut out). The fact that the beam is only guarded by one Reaper is kind of hard to believe. And that fact that the Reaper doesn't just shoot the missile launcher is kind of odd.

 

Add to the fact that there's no way to harm Harb, and now Normandy comes in just to pick up crew members without shooting Harb in the face first with a Thanix cannon is kind of disappointing. Also, the London level looks no different from other levels like it. Like ones from Resistance, or Gears of War, or Halo.

[TMA LIVE]

I would have had the 'cost' be casualties on the squad in accomplishing the mission. All hands on deck for the final mission, with it being impossible to get everyone through unscathed...a suicide mission that actually lives up to the name.

 

The problem with that, is that you can lower the crew to just 2 surviving ME2 characters (mine was Jacob and Garrus), Liara, James, and Edi. Not much to make a suicide mission out of, unless you want that result to just get the "Reapers win" ending.

[von uber]

The problem with that, is that you can lower the crew to just 2 surviving ME2 characters (mine was Jacob and Garrus), Liara, James, and Edi. Not much to make a suicide mission out of, unless you want that result to just get the "Reapers win" ending.

 

Well maybe that should have been the way then.

[themikefest]

The problem with that, is that you can lower the crew to just 2 surviving ME2 characters (mine was Jacob and Garrus), Liara, James, and Edi. Not much to make a suicide mission out of, unless you want that result to just get the "Reapers win" ending.

I had a playthrough with only James. Liara and edi as the only squadmates alive out of all 3 games when heading to Earth. 

[TMA LIVE]

I had a playthrough with only James. Liara and edi as the only squadmates alive out of all 3 games when heading to Earth. 

 

What squadmates mates do you like if you don't mind me asking?

[themikefest]

What squadmates mates do you like if you don't mind me asking?

 If you're wondering all the squadmates that I like were dead in that playthrough except James since he can't die until the beam run. 

 

This is a playthrough I did back in October. I didn't mind doing it. I most likely will never do a playthrough like that again since it took forever to complete

[Tempest_]

It just falls a little flat. I think as the climax to the trilogy, it left a lot of people with an "is that it?" feeling. It's not bad but it's not great either. The Mass Effect traits we love are there. Companion time, speeches, cut scenes etc. are all present and accounted for. It just constantly felt like there was something missing.

 

It also has the unenviable task of following two very strong endings in the previous games. The climaxes at the Citadel in ME1 and (especially) the Collector base were incredible and Priority:Earth just can't hold a candle to either in terms of scale and epicness. Perhaps it's the lack of consequence that I have a gripe with. The best missions of the series (Virmire, Suicide Mission etc.) have choices and consequences which influence the world on a grand scale and give those missions a feeling of significance.

 

Priority Earth just feels very insignificant. I think you throw in a couple of decisions along the way to the Catalyst and maybe you bring a little of the magic from the previous two endings.

[Reorte]

Then that's your problem. Because depressing heartbreaking scenes are written for Movies, TV Shows, Comics, and Books all the time.

You need to watch the attitude.

We're not talking about scenes that are a small part of the overall whole, we're talking about how something makes you feel at the end (even if that's down to the last scene). Sometimes a downbeat or heartbraking ending will be entirely appropriate for the story (it isn't in Mass Effect no matter what some claim) but to suggest that someone's goal is to make people feel miserable is twisted. It's not the same as "I've got a good story but it's rather a depressing one."

[Gothfather]

I found there was a disconnect with the tone, theme and setting for the final push.

 

I never felt like this was an all or nothing gamble, that the reapers where this all powerful galaxy destroying force. Why? because I killed Sovereign, killed a destroyer with the Quarian fleet while it targeted me on the ground and watched a thresher maw kill a different destroyer. Couple this to the fact that EVERY time I ran into a problem I could pull the super dooper awesome trooper Shepard move and take out the staples "easy" button and press that for a cost free victory.

 

By the time I reached priority Earth I never felt like I was fighting this desperate battle to survive but I felt like I was fighting in battle that the reapers were doomed to die in. That's a TERRIBLE disconnect to have for the theme of the series. Sometimes in games you want to feel empowered, but not all games should make you feel empowered, its a death nail for a horror/survival genre game to feel kickass and empowered. Playing Shepard should not have felt so god damn super dooper awesome after fighting to unite the galaxy. They should have made the game feel like it was a desperate gamble that you were not likely to "win" it is why the dream sequences all feel like forced emotionally because why is Shepard depressed and fearful? The gameplay, mechanics and story all show Shepard kicking ass and taking names, all show Shepard pushing away entrenched problems of the galactic community away with a mere way of the hand. Nothing is costly, no hard choices, no loss in Shepard's personal orbit directly tied to the reapers.

 

Hell Shepard is superfluous to the overall plan on earth as you are not even assigned to a critical unit or sector, its just "run around as you see fit Shep we got this." That doesn't add to the tone of a desperate last chance for victory battle but more of "Reapers? Meh they are tough but we got this, no worries." attitude.

 

All the work you put into the series in amassing this war score means nothing to the overall content of earth. There seems to be no tangible, or emotional connection to choices you made in the series, during the operation on earth. You then get a mad rush at the end that even with the extended cuts leaves you with a cognitive dissonance because the desperation of the fight just never translated well. Its also explains why so many people wanted the option to say "go to hell" to the catalyst which they added in EC but as an auto reaper win. This fan base response happens because the game made you feel like you could defeat the reapers on your own terms not that you are just barely struggling to survive that this is the end unless there is a miracle. 

 

You may not feel that this is detailed enough but the failures of ME3 where not so much this level design was too X or the mobs were too Y. The failures where in how the mechanics worked at cross purposes with creating the feel that you are desperate that there isn't much hope, that the reapers are so overpowering, that your ability as the player/Shepard to defeat them is in question. To do this they needed to make you feel progressively less empowered as the story unfolded in ME3 but you felt more and more empowered with each crisis solved with a magic wave of the hand using the "I win" button. This is why I think the endings fail so badly, if the game made you actually feel like you would most likely lose, there would be disappointment that the previous choices has less impact than player would have hopped but that is the norm for games so I believe the rage would have been muted, but you felt so god damn super dooper awesome when you get to earth that when you are presented with the choices you don't feel like this is the "hail Mary" the crucible is meant to feel like, so the conversation with the Ai just seems forced and jarring which shatters any hope of a satisfied feeling for the game/series.

 

 

[TMA LIVE]

You need to watch the attitude.

We're not talking about scenes that are a small part of the overall whole, we're talking about how something makes you feel at the end (even if that's down to the last scene). Sometimes a downbeat or heartbraking ending will be entirely appropriate for the story (it isn't in Mass Effect no matter what some claim) but to suggest that someone's goal is to make people feel miserable is twisted. It's not the same as "I've got a good story but it's rather a depressing one."

 

You do realizes there's books like The Road right? The goal is to make you feel horrible for what you're reading. The writer doesn't want you to feel good and happy for reading about how there's people in the basement being eaten, and will continue to be eaten. Or how this character dies.

[Reorte]

I would have had the 'cost' be casualties on the squad in accomplishing the mission. All hands on deck for the final mission, with it being impossible to get everyone through unscathed...a suicide mission that actually lives up to the name.

I've said it before but I don't really like the idea of "impossible", especially for a small group. That's "someone's doomed to die", future written in stone (to a degree) stuff. Although when it's done well it can be pulled off reasonably (willing suspension of not being part of a scripted plot is all part of willing suspension of disbelief) the ideal is simply that it would be extremely difficult, perhaps just about impossible in reality, but not hardcoded as being. Compare it with a difficult map on a realtime strategy game. You'll almost certainly lose units but it's not (theoretically) impossible for them all to survive.

[Reorte]

You do realizes there's books like The Road right? The goal is to make you feel horrible for what you're reading. They don't want you to feel good and happy for reading about how there's people in the basement being eaten, or how this character dies.

If the goal is simply to make people feel bad then I see no reason to have any respect for the author. Setting out to hurt people emotionally doesn't strike me as any better as setting out to hurt them physically.

[TMA LIVE]

If the goal is simply to make people feel bad then I see no reason to have any respect for the author. Setting out to hurt people emotionally doesn't strike me as any better as setting out to hurt them physically.

 

I think there's a very big difference between making someone feel bad from reading a book vs physically hurting them. But like I said, if you don't like anyone making you feel "bad" for reading something, then that really is your problem. I'm not saying that like that's a bad thing, it's just that not everyone has that same mindset.

[Reorte]

There are of course differences between making someone bad from reading a book and physically hurting them but there also parallels. Why should one be OK and not the other? And don't say "that's your problem" again, assuming that my position is a problem.

[God]

Really, why not? Why do only the technical aspects and not the emotional ones matter? Emotion is a massive part of storytelling.

 

Emotions are also very subjective and difficult to portray practically. Every experience is different for the player. A good emotional plot doesn't try too hard to tug at your sensibilities and feelings, whereas a poor one does. As well, many people wanted the ending to be reflective of how they felt rather than what might work. They wanted to feel good. They didn't want something that was narratively practical, they wanted something that could empower their power fantasy.

[God]

You need to watch the attitude.

We're not talking about scenes that are a small part of the overall whole, we're talking about how something makes you feel at the end (even if that's down to the last scene). Sometimes a downbeat or heartbraking ending will be entirely appropriate for the story (it isn't in Mass Effect no matter what some claim) but to suggest that someone's goal is to make people feel miserable is twisted. It's not the same as "I've got a good story but it's rather a depressing one."

 

The goal of the ending wasn't to make you feel anything. It was to make you think.

 

If you refuse to think, then yeah, it's on you. If you feel miserable, too bad. It's not their obligation to make you feel anything.

[Reorte]

Emotions are also very subjective and difficult to portray practically. Every experience is different for the player. A good emotional plot doesn't try too hard to tug at your sensibilities and feelings, whereas a poor one does. As well, many people wanted the ending to be reflective of how they felt rather than what might work. They wanted to feel good. They didn't want something that was narratively practical, they wanted something that could empower their power fantasy.

You were making a good point until you dragged up the old "power fantasy" thing.

Part of the reason the ending went down so badly with a lot of people is because it didn't work. Downbeat endings are far better accepted when they work.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to feel good. Anything that makes people feel good surely is good (as long as it doesn't come at the expense of others). It's only a problem when, as you say, it tries too hard and obviously to tug, and when it becomes so trite and predictable that it loses any meaning.

Emotion might be difficult, it's also arguably the reason for having stories in the first place.

[Reorte]

The goal of the ending wasn't to make you feel anything. It was to make you think.
 
If you refuse to think, then yeah, it's on you. If you feel miserable, too bad. It's not their obligation to make you feel anything.

Now you're just sounding like a jerk. You're also very wrong. I'd probably be a lot happier if I didn't think.

[God]

You were making a good point until you dragged up the old "power fantasy" thing.

Part of the reason the ending went down so badly with a lot of people is because it didn't work. Downbeat endings are far better accepted when they work.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to feel good. Anything that makes people feel good surely is good (as long as it doesn't come at the expense of others). It's only a problem when, as you say, it tries too hard and obviously to tug, and when it becomes so trite and predictable that it loses any meaning.

Emotion might be difficult, it's also arguably the reason for having stories in the first place.

 

Well, it is a power fantasy. 

 

You'll have to explain how the ending didn't work. In the ways that I believe you're suggesting, I disagree entirely. 

 

And no, there's nothing wrong with wanting to feel good. That said, there's nothing wrong with a game when it doesn't make you feel good. 

 

The rest of your statement doesn't really need addressing. It's not really related to the point I'm trying to make, and I don't feel a particular agreement or disagreement with the words.

[God]

Now you're just sounding like a jerk. You're also very wrong. I'd probably be a lot happier if I didn't think.

 

As I said, it doesn't matter what you feel. The ending was designed to make you think. Bioware wasn't trying to make you feel anything. So don't blame Bioware because you feel bad.

[o Ventus]

 Bioware wasn't trying to make you feel anything.

Have you actually played through the ending? It most definitely DOES want you to 'feel'.

[Reorte]

A technical paper or an essay is designed to make you think. A piece of fiction can do that too of course but it needs to do more to be any good. And it's in thinking about it that it all starts to fall apart. Why that's the case has already been discussed to death. It tries to raise some questions that could raise some interesting discussion but the implementation isn't done well enough to carry that off.

If you want a bit of Mass Effect where I had to think (and still haven't managed to come to a conclusion about) then it's the choice in Legion's loyalty mission in ME2.

[God]

Have you actually played through the ending? It most definitely DOES want you to 'feel'.

 

I disagree entirely. I think the premise of the ending is to make you stand back and think critically about the ending. It's a scenario that is divorced from the conflict that we ourselves are facing in the game, one where we have little bearing to really formulate a concise decision making prospect.

 

It's a 180 from how I used to feel about the ending. You and I talked about it at length with others.

[God]

A technical paper or an essay is designed to make you think. A piece of fiction can do that too of course but it needs to do more to be any good. And it's in thinking about it that it all starts to fall apart. Why that's the case has already been discussed to death. It tries to raise some questions that could raise some interesting discussion but the implementation isn't done well enough to carry that off.

If you want a bit of Mass Effect where I had to think (and still haven't managed to come to a conclusion about) then it's the choice in Legion's loyalty mission in ME2.

 

And as I said, I'd chalk that up to the technical and narrative flaws of the ending. Just because I accept the concept and higher order issue of the ending doesn't mean I like the actual execution or portrayal of it. I never said it was a narrative masterpiece. 

 

And if that's all you had to think in ME, then I can say that we had two very different styles. I rely almost exclusively on critical thinking and rational judgement in my decision making.

[Reorte]

I pick one example and you say "if that's all you had to think in ME"? Just as well that you said you rely almost exclusively...

I agree to an extent that it was trying to play the "thinking about it" card, although it looks more like something produced by someone who had some idea of what thoughtful looks like but not how it actually works. The idea that that was all there was supposed to be to it is really rather strange though; if that's all there was supposed to be you may as well drop the narrative and just go for a bit of straightforward text. No Catalyst, just a console with three choices each with a technical, impersonal Readme.