The sheer contrarianism in your posts are pretty amusing. Particularly when you go so far as to attack someone who even vaguely agrees with me like you did to Mr Fob. But I'll tell you what if your gone for a few days pick only rather recent posts I'm not going to respond to you if you pick a post that has already been discussed already 3 days ago and you feel like throwing your 2 cents in well after the fact.
Where did I "attack" MrFOB? I don't remember doing it and can't find it, though I do see one of my posts was mod-edited. No warning point though...
Respond to whatever you want. I care not.
That's exactly what I'm saying. You're wrong, you're defending products, you're not defending art. You're not defending writing as an artistic form, you're defending writing as merchandise.
When you'll start to read from the writing and not from the reception, you'll start to be reading. When you'll stop with trying to want something that follow rules that do not exist from a writing perspective, you'll start to defend art.
Do you remember what I said about Aristotle and Shakespeare? I said that from Aristotle point of view Shakespeare was a bad writer. you couldn't understand that, which means that you have never read Aristotle or Shakespeare. If you have read Aristotle then you should know that it's forbidden to mix tragedy and comedy, to mix a beautiful langage with some sexual references from Aristotle's point of view. Shakespeare mix tragedy and comedy, and he used sexual refences (that why some part were removed by people thinking that such a great writer can't be writing such things). You'll always find "rules" to justify your point of view. But it means that you never read, you only try to confirm what you have already seen. you don't follow the internal logic of a text, you only try to apply external logic and say that the internal logic of the writing is broken (while it's just your own expectations that are broken).
A good reader is someone who adapts his reading to a text. If you actually don't read, then what do you really know about a story? if you can't get the writing level of a text then you actually don't know what a story is, that's all. So don't try to sound like you are defending "good writing" when you (and you're not the only one on this forum) are just defending Hollywood's writing, money making writing, writing as non-creation, writing as repetitions of the same patterns without relation between form and content. you're not defending art because you're not defending creation. you're defending products because you're defending repetition.
I'm criticizing a product, in this case ME3, for how poorly it does the art of storytelling. You and Gothpunkboy are the one defending the product. Trying something new and different is admirable, but it doesn't make something good on its own. Lots of attempts at anything end in failure.
It is the very fact that we humans have told and heard so many stories that the writing conventions exist and we can determine, to a point, what makes a good or bad writing or story.
I had pulmonary surgery recently and had to be put on bypass. My body was cooled to 65 degrees Fahrenheit. I was technically dead for 35 minutes. I'm not saying that Project Lazarus doesn't sound crazy, but I'm saying that if you'd told people 200 years ago that that surgery would result in me being up and walking around two days later and sitting here talking to you a couple of weeks later, maybe they would have thought it was a lot of magicky nonsense.
That's not really a good comparison. The biggest hurdles to the Lazarus Project are atmospheric reentry and planet-fall. Shepard's body should have been dust. Bringing a corpse to life seems less of a stretch to me in sci-fi, even if it doesn't really fit this particular setting. If it doesn't, that is also a problem.
Because it is a good narrative. There are issues with it and things they could have done better with it. But it seems a lot like people are finding points and simply complaining to complain without looking at it from a whole. There are many points that players seem to be complaining simply because things didn't happen exactly the way they want them to happen. You see this usually in super hero movies based on comics. Were the directer alters things compared to comic and rather then judge the movie based on it's own merit and what it did with existing content. They spend hours complaining that Spiderman doesn't have organic webbing.
This is just the last ditch argument of someone who can't argue the substance of those complaints.
People are big fans of superheroes. That's the entire reason the movies are successful. The movies can't be judged purely on their own merits because they rely on the popularity of the comics, including using their storylines. People go to see them because they've known these characters their whole lives. Your particular example of Spiderman's webs didn't spoil those movies for me, but I noticed. But it makes perfect sense that fans would be mad if an adaptation messed with a key aspect of a character.
The creation of the Catalyst and the Catalyst's subsequent creation of the Reapers as a last resort because of the conflict between synthetic and organic life. Yet Iakus sits there and declares there is no proof of the conflict. The very existence of the AI and the Reapers is proof the conflicts exists. When you add in Leviathan DLC it only adds to the proof. But again makes the claim there is no conflict. This alone this completely ignoring rather key bits of information so hard because it goes against what he wants to see or wants to have happened. Is rather common when it comes to this game and others.
That's not true because there is no logic that says killer cyborg squids are the natural result of Organics and Synthetics fighting. Until verified by Leviathan, an argument after the fact, the Catalyst's claims are merely claims with no supporting evidence. It could be just some BS the Catalyst made up to tell this squishy that happen to find it. The claims have to be supported by the character's, and therefore the audience's, experience, if we're going to be forced to accept them. However, if we are going to be able to reject them, then it make sense that the experience is counter to the claims. There lies the problem with the Mass Effect endings. We are forced to accept claims countered by the experience from the story.
Also, as has been pointed out, if the Catalyst's existence is evidence of any conflict between Organic and Synthetic, it is only evidence of it during the Leviathans' time. After that, the Reapers influence things and push the galaxy toward the very thing they claim they are trying to prevent. Actually, the claim about the Keepers show how they should have done it. The Keepers make it so that the people using the Citadel don't need to understand it. The Catalyst claims to know why Organics make Synthetics. So if the Catalyst just provided the Synthetics or other resources and technology, it could prevent Organics from ever needing to make the Synthetics that will eventually kill them. It would be in Control of its own Synthetics and would not make them kill everyone.
Using Leviathan in talking about the endings is doing things backwards. That DLC was written to bolster the ending rather than the ending being written based on prior events.
There have been multiple moments were I am discussing something based on memory alone. They are arguing a point then I finally look up a video on that particular area and it shows how much they are simply making stuff up to complain about it. Beam run they were complaining about them not using Gunships to distract Harbinger. Well guess what they were and he was blowing them out of the sky. Another person made the statement that simply shooting at Harbinger with their rifles would some how distract him enough to not kill everyone running towards the beam. Even though the entire point of Harbinger leaving the space battle was to protect the beam. They how ever were adamant about how small arms fire would apparently be able to distract a Reaper that showed up for 1 very specific reason from that reason.
Hell even the Normandy pick up can be explained without much effort. Before that point the game shows a couple of Reapers heading towards the planet. Hackett states that any available ship delay them to give Hammer more time. This being an in atmosphere would prevent the larger ships from being used. Joker considering his loyalty towards Shepard would jump at that order to attempt to save him. After all Shepard quite literally died to save him. That puts him in the area. When Shepard calls for an Evac again fitting with Joker's personality and loyalty towards Shepard and his crew he pulls the Normandy up to evac them. If you also noticed around the beam there are multiple structures. Which means unless the Reapers suddenly developed a sense of artistry and build them for no reason they would have some sort of connection to the beam to the Citadel. Blowing up the SR-2 would cause a massive explosion which wouldn't harm Harbinger but would harm the structures around the beam. Thus it lets the Normandy leave finding it isn't worth the collateral damage to destroy it now. Because them leaving would only by them a few minutes at best before they are destroyed by Reaper forces anyways. Once the Normandy is gone Harbinger takes off as well to follow it into space were it can be blown up without unwanted collateral damage.
Those gunships fly down the same corridor the ground troops fly from. People are suggesting the gunships fly at different angles. Still, I do agree with you that Harbinger would not likely turn. But what about dropships or shuttles? Why shouldn't forces come from all angles? Why not use those large spires for cover, as I suggested?
In fairness, these are somewhat nitpicks. However, this is also after accepting that this plan is a good idea, when that is the larger problem. Why is this new transport beam technology being introduced now? How do we know what it actually does or if it's safe? Why are the Reapers transporting humans, alive and dead, to the Citadel? Where are the live ones?
You might be right about the atmosphere if the intro didn't show a dreadnaught flying around inside the atmosphere. Unless that's not the dreadnaught Kashley mentions, as it does look like it might be a bit small, but the implication is that it is a dreadnaught. If the Normandy came to fight the Reapers heading to Earth, why is it picking up crew instead of doing that? Oh, because Shepard asked. Why is Shepard doing that instead of running to the beam and doing his duty? It's all or nothing at this point. Why was attacking the Collectors a suicide mission but this isn't?
As to the Normandy exploding, I'm pretty sure the Reapers could construct something that would withstand that explosion. If not, they can rebuild the spires. What's the rush? How is that minor inconvenience worth letting a ship, especially that ship get away?
The problem is that you're reaching and scrambling to find answers to things that should be explained in the story. This would make it feel more organic rather than obvious melodrama. You're right that sometimes we can fill in unimportant blanks, but major things are not the place for that. In a character driven story, the fate of characters is rather important.
Retour en haut
