3578 réponses à ce sujet

[kalikilic]

The original ending is what Bioware wanted to do. The extended cut is a compromise between what they wanted to do and what people needed to like it.

The original ending fits perfectly to the structure :

-first, the whole structure (in the macrostructure, the trilogy, and in the microstructure, Mass Effect 3) is more like a spiral (2/3, with an acceleration in the third part, and it goes faster and faster).

-second, Mac walters and casey Hudson talked about the high level of the catalyst scene. This notion is very important to understand the ending. When people refuse the "high level" (I'm not talking about you, I actually don't know what you think about it), it's the whole ending that they refuse. The catalyst scene is supposed to be a higher perception of things, which means that we are no longer in development of basic explanations, that's why the ending is based on implicit and paradoxes. It had to go against our perception of things. And it had to stay on this higher level, not to go back on the human scale of perception, that's why the narration goes higher and higher till it gets to the meta level (the stargazer scene with the idea that the game is a story told by someone).

-third, the writers and developers are not the stupid guys some people here want them to be. They know what breaking a cycle means. The cycle is determinism. But they also know that narration is determinism (when you tell a story you force the audience to follow you. Bioware know that when you give a choice, there is actually no freedom, you force the player to choose a path that was created.). So breaking the cycle is supposed to be creating freedom. But freedom isn't determinism. So when you impose a narration and the player is supposed to be free, there is a contradiction. That's why most of the (good) stories about breaking cycles do not have epilogue (I used snowpiercer and Bloodborne as very good examples). That's why they wanted "speculation for everyone", because they know that the game is a personal experience and the apex is the final choice and the consequences.

 

That's basically why the original ending had this form. Sure, because it goes against the habit of reading of most people, it created that reaction from a lot of people.

i'm not sure what's worse. thinking that the ending was a rushed botched mistake or thinking that the ending was a "well-thought out, story driven, plot conclusive," intended piece of "art".

 

=|. this is tough.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Possibly relevant:

 

[rossler]

i'm not sure what's worse. thinking that the ending was a rushed botched mistake or thinking that the ending was a "well-thought out, story driven, plot conclusive," intended piece of "art".

 

=|. this is tough.

 

From what I've read, they stand by the core game they made and were quite proud of their accomplishment. You guys? Not so much. 

[themikefest]

The original ending is what Bioware wanted to do.

I find that hard to believe.

 

When Shepard chooses whatever ending, 3 characters appear in flashbacks. Anderson, Joker and Ashley/Kaidan/Liara. If Ashley/Kaidan/Liara were not romanced, the third flashback would always show Liara. Why couldn't they include all the other LI's as well? Was it because the game was rushed? Even if the game was rushed, why did they only have Ashley/Kaidan/Liara show up in the third flashback. I'm not a game designer or any of that stuff, but I don't believe it would've taken long to include the others in the original ending.

 

For me, the best part of the extended cut was that it fixed that problem. Now it includes all the other LI's. They got rid of Joker, but kept Anderson.

[themikefest]

From what I've read, they stand by the core game they made and were quite proud of their accomplishment. You guys? Not so much. 

Answer the question about the flashbacks in my post above this one?

[Natureguy85]

That's why he flew the SR1 into the collector beam at the beginning of ME2

 

Right, that's why he was flying into the Collector Ship's beam.

 

While it does look silly, I let that slide. He can't see where the beam is except maybe glancing outside the window, but even then doesn't have much time to react. The particle beam that can just sweep is a new type of weapon to the setting. Joker is used to mass driver cannons that need to aim ahead of the ship. He's just making evasive, darting motions.

 

 

Those Thannix Cannons don't have unlimited range you know. 

 

Technically, they do. I know they are not the as Mass Drivers but they still fire a projectile.

 

 

 

You're right that they have a limited "functional" range, but this was an excuse to bring up on of the best flavor scenes in the series.

 

 

 

What do shuttle craft usually do once they unload their cargo? Return to the ship to gather more cargo to bring to the front lines again.  He is a pilot not a ground fighter. He would by any group he was found by put back in a Kodiak and sent back to the fleet to gather more troops/heavy armor.

 

I genuinely don't know how much more simpler I can make this.

 

Not necessarily. They might just move troops and equipment around the battlefield or provide fire support, since they have guns now. Considering the fleet is in a space battle, and smaller ships like the Normandy are zipping around in combat,the shuttles would be very vulnerable trying to do that. Now, it's technically possible, and maybe there were some supply ships hanging back for that very purpose, but one wouldn't go to the Normandy for that.

 

 

 

-second, Mac walters and casey Hudson talked about the high level of the catalyst scene. This notion is very important to understand the ending. When people refuse the "high level" (I'm not talking about you, I actually don't know what you think about it), it's the whole ending that they refuse. The catalyst scene is supposed to be a higher perception of things, which means that we are no longer in development of basic explanations, that's why the ending is based on implicit and paradoxes. It had to go against our perception of things. And it had to stay on this higher level, not to go back on the human scale of perception, that's why the narration goes higher and higher till it gets to the meta level (the stargazer scene with the idea that the game is a story told by someone).

-third, the writers and developers are not the stupid guys some people here want them to be. They know what breaking a cycle means. The cycle is determinism. But they also know that narration is determinism (when you tell a story you force the audience to follow you. Bioware know that when you give a choice, there is actually no freedom, you force the player to choose a path that was created.). So breaking the cycle is supposed to be creating freedom. But freedom isn't determinism. So when you impose a narration and the player is supposed to be free, there is a contradiction. That's why most of the (good) stories about breaking cycles do not have epilogue (I used snowpiercer and Bloodborne as very good examples). That's why they wanted "speculation for everyone", because they know that the game is a personal experience and the apex is the final choice and the consequences.

 

That's basically why the original ending had this form. Sure, because it goes against the habit of reading of most people, it created that reaction from a lot of people.

 

Well, it is clear that they wanted to get "high" with the writing. (And it's not out of the question that they were high while writing the ending.) However, they failed. That was not the time to suddenly get philosophical. It was like someone using big words they don't understand to sound smart with an advanced vocabulary.

If the ending was supposed to be about breaking determinism, then why did we have to choose from one of the enemy's 3 options? Why was Refuse, the most thematically consistent ending, not in the game?

[rossler]

Answer the question about the flashbacks in my post above this one?

 

I can't. I didn't make the game

[themikefest]

I can't. I didn't make the game. 

Aren't you the one that has been posting that playing the game explains everything about the ending?

 

While it does look silly, I let that slide. He can't see where the beam is except maybe glancing outside the window, but even then doesn't have much time to react. The particle beam that can just sweep is a new type of weapon to the setting. Joker is used to mass driver cannons that need to aim ahead of the ship. He's just making evasive, darting motions.

When watching the video, he moves the SR1 to his left at the same time the beam fires, and then for some reason moves the SR1 back to the his right in the beams line of fire. Why did he move back to his right? When the beam was first fired, it missed the SR1. Joker would've seen that and not go to his right. If he's such a skilled pilot, he wouldn't of done that. He would've just continued to his left. He did not.

https://youtu.be/agjk7hwbrRc?t=2m45s

[rossler]

Aren't you the one that has been posting that playing the game explains everything about the ending?

 

I don't know why Liara always showed up regardless of your LI. 

 

This sort of thing is a question to bring up with a game designer, not a customer. 

[Natureguy85]

 

When watching the video, he moves the SR1 to his left at the same time the beam fires, and then for some reason moves the SR1 back to the his right in the beams line of fire. Why did he move back to his right? When the beam was first fired, it missed the SR1. Joker would've seen that and not go to his right. If he's such a skilled pilot, he wouldn't of done that. He would've just continued to his left. He did not.

https://youtu.be/agjk7hwbrRc?t=2m45s

I don't know that he would have seen the beam. Remember, they operate mostly on sensors and computers, not with actual visuals. The SR-1 had very slim windows on the bridge and they gave limited vision of what was directly on either side. The beam is above the Normandy, likely out of vision even if someone was looking outside. Joker, however, is looking at his monitors. Beam weapons are new to the setting, other than GARDIAN lasers, and are probably new to Joker. Weaving back and forth makes sense against Mass Accelerator weapons.

 

Again, your complaint isn't unreasonable or even uncommon, but it seems fine to me. It did make me think of this though:

 

 

http://www.spike.com...euvers-dvd-clip

 

 

I don't know why Liara always showed up regardless of your LI. 

 

This sort of thing is a question to bring up with a game designer, not a customer. 

 

Why can't you figure it out from clues and such?

[angol fear]

I find that hard to believe.

 

When Shepard chooses whatever ending, 3 characters appear in flashbacks. Anderson, Joker and Ashley/Kaidan/Liara. If Ashley/Kaidan/Liara were not romanced, the third flashback would always show Liara. Why couldn't they include all the other LI's as well? Was it because the game was rushed? Even if the game was rushed, why did they only have Ashley/Kaidan/Liara show up in the third flashback. I'm not a game designer or any of that stuff, but I don't believe it would've taken long to include the others in the original ending.

 

For me, the best part of the extended cut was that it fixed that problem. Now it includes all the other LI's. They got rid of Joker, but kept Anderson.

 

Sorry I do not work at Bioware so I can't tell you.

Anyway, what you are talking about is a detail : the story isn't about the relation between Shepard and some other character, it's about Shepard trying to stop the reapers. Just like you said, even if they would have rushed the game, it seems that it doesn't take so long to create an image and include it in the flashbacks.

But details don't make something turn from good to bad. The detail you're talking about makes the ending more personal, it doesn't make it bad or rushed.

I can give you another example : Tsui Hark's The Blade is consider to be a masterpiece but if you take a look carefully you will sometime see some members staff on the screen. The film doesn't become bad or rushed because of that.

I understand that you would have prefered this detail to be fixed since the original ending, but it doesn't really impact on the quality of the writing.

[Vanilka]

The original ending is what Bioware wanted to do. The extended cut is a compromise between what they wanted to do and what people needed to like it.

The original ending fits perfectly to the structure :

-first, the whole structure (in the macrostructure, the trilogy, and in the microstructure, Mass Effect 3) is more like a spiral (2/3, with an acceleration in the third part, and it goes faster and faster).

-second, Mac walters and casey Hudson talked about the high level of the catalyst scene. This notion is very important to understand the ending. When people refuse the "high level" (I'm not talking about you, I actually don't know what you think about it), it's the whole ending that they refuse. The catalyst scene is supposed to be a higher perception of things, which means that we are no longer in development of basic explanations, that's why the ending is based on implicit and paradoxes. It had to go against our perception of things. And it had to stay on this higher level, not to go back on the human scale of perception, that's why the narration goes higher and higher till it gets to the meta level (the stargazer scene with the idea that the game is a story told by someone).

-third, the writers and developers are not the stupid guys some people here want them to be. They know what breaking a cycle means. The cycle is determinism. But they also know that narration is determinism (when you tell a story you force the audience to follow you. Bioware know that when you give a choice, there is actually no freedom, you force the player to choose a path that was created.). So breaking the cycle is supposed to be creating freedom. But freedom isn't determinism. So when you impose a narration and the player is supposed to be free, there is a contradiction. That's why most of the (good) stories about breaking cycles do not have epilogue (I used snowpiercer and Bloodborne as very good examples). That's why they wanted "speculation for everyone", because they know that the game is a personal experience and the apex is the final choice and the consequences.

 

That's basically why the original ending had this form. Sure, because it goes against the habit of reading of most people, it created that reaction from a lot of people.

 

Hey, I appreciate you finally added your two credits. It was an interesting read! That's a post that helps me understand where you're coming from, unlike some of the previous ones. However, the problem is that, whether true or not, I don't think it explains why the ending is good. I mean, I may analyse a whatever piece of fiction to death, break it all the way down to all its -isms, literary elements, tropes and what have you, but that alone doesn't mean quality. Particularly if at face value - and I know you're going to dislike me going there - there are things like the ridiculous evac scene, magical waves of light inserting DNA into people, the contradiction with the first game, etc. In a franchise that takes place in cold, brutal reality otherwise. If it looks botched when you take it literally - and judging by the reaction of so many fans it did and still does - then some higher meaning, if it is even there, means little. I'm not going to argue whether you're right or wrong because I have no proof for or against it and I'm cool with that. What I know is that a lot of players aren't going to drop reality, even if it barely makes sense - and you can see it even from the posts of the people who defend the ending here - and actively look for some sort of higher meaning and appreciate it just for the ropes behind it all. I think in the ideal scenario, there would be both higher meaning present as well as an ending without plotholes and contradictions (which have been explained into painful detail throughout this very thread). Because those are not mutually exclusive.

[Natureguy85]

 

Anyway, what you are talking about is a detail : the story isn't about the relation between Shepard and some other character, it's about Shepard trying to stop the reapers.

 

That's questionable. Mass Effect 2 was a shift into a character focused story. The main plot was poorly written and had little to nothing to do with stopping the Reapers. All of the skill went into the characters and their missions.

[Vanilka]

From what I've read, they stand by the core game they made and were quite proud of their accomplishment. You guys? Not so much. 

 

Well, of course they're not going to say the endings are crap. (Even Jennifer Hale and Mark Meer couldn't come with much besides, "Well, you know, endings are hard!") I also couldn't tell my clients that I thought our company's methods were awful because that's a professional suicide. I had to make them believe everything was awesome so that they would stay with us. It's one of the reasons I found another job because I didn't want to be part of that any longer.

 

Not to even mention that only a couple of people were responsible for what a lot of players had issues with and that is the writing and decision as to what kind of content would be present. The music, the level design? There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. Hell, I think the environmental designers, the composers, the voice actors, animators, etc., all these people deserve great praise because their work is excellent, and poor sods are often forgotten because everybody is so focused on what happened in the writing department. I can't see why e.g. the environmental designer couldn't be proud of their work in this case. That's not what went wrong here. It wasn't ALL bad.

 

All that said, I don't envy these guys. Bet that's not how they wanted the franchise to be remembered.

[voteDC]

Sorry I do not work at Bioware so I can't tell you.

Then how can you speak with such authority on the fact that the shipped endings are what Bioware wanted to do? You make good arguments for it elsewhere.

 

Surely if the ending is what Bioware wanted to do, then those characters who appeared in the slides are those that Bioware wanted to be there.

There was no error of a crew person being visible on camera in this case surely, it was a deliberately placed slide of a character that the writers chose.

[Vanilka]

It also could've been just a bug. Like EDI walking out of the Normandy despite choosing the Destroy ending in the original. (Well, you could take it as a proof that the Catalyst was wrong.  )

[voteDC]

It also could've been just a bug. Like EDI walking out of the Normandy despite choosing the Destroy ending in the original. (Well, you could take it as a proof that the Catalyst was wrong.  )

It is certainly true that the other slides could have been in the game originally and intended to be used. Yet isn't that something, just like EDI walking out of the Normandy in Destroy, that could have been fixed with a patch rather than a entire new DLC?

[Vanilka]

It is certainly true that the other slides could have been in the game originally and intended to be used. Yet isn't that something, just like EDI walking out of the Normandy in Destroy, that could have been fixed with a patch rather than a entire new DLC?

 

Yeah, I've got nothing.

[angol fear]

Then how can you speak with such authority on the fact that the shipped endings are what Bioware wanted to do? You make good arguments for it elsewhere.

 

Because that's my job. But because I work in literature, I know where are the limits of the reader. There are things that are what the structure tells (the form is meaningful) and there are things that can't be said, just like what you're talking about (maybe they only have forgotten it, maybe they didn't have time... here there is nothing that can make anyone, except those who worked on Mass Effect 3's ending, explaining you the reason why there isn't all the LI).

I've (long ago) started to explain how complex is a text (the word itself shows the complexity). When you see something done systematically, there is an intention. We don't care if it's unconscious or not because writing is a process that includes both and in the end the text is the result of both. When you see a line that goes from the first till the end in a coherent way, moreover if it goes against the player's expectation, there is a strong intention. The ending was not improvised, it's impossible because it creates too many relation between themes and structures, that shows the intention. The structure was made to create that surprising ending.

 

 

Surely if the ending is what Bioware wanted to do, then those characters who appeared in the slides are those that Bioware wanted to be there.

 

You will notice that those characters are the most important or the most developed in Mass Effect 3's story. So yes those characters are those that Bioware wanted to be there. But I was answering the question : why there isn't all the LI?

 

 

Hey, I appreciate you finally added your two credits. It was an interesting read! That's a post that helps me understand where you're coming from, unlike some of the previous ones. However, the problem is that, whether true or not, I don't think it explains why the ending is good. I mean, I may analyse a whatever piece of fiction to death, break it all the way down to all its -isms, literary elements, tropes and what have you, but that alone doesn't mean quality. Particularly if at face value - and I know you're going to dislike me going there - there are things like the ridiculous evac scene, magical waves of light inserting DNA into people, the contradiction with the first game, etc. In a franchise that takes place in cold, brutal reality otherwise. If it looks botched when you take it literally - and judging by the reaction of so many fans it did and still does - then some higher meaning, if it is even there, means little. I'm not going to argue whether you're right or wrong because I have no proof for or against it and I'm cool with that. What I know is that a lot of players aren't going to drop reality, even if it barely makes sense - and you can see it even from the posts of the people who defend the ending here - and actively look for some sort of higher meaning and appreciate it just for the ropes behind it all. I think in the ideal scenario, there would be both higher meaning present as well as an ending without plotholes and contradictions (which have been explained into painful detail throughout this very thread). Because those are not mutually exclusive.

 

I'm quite busy but today I've got little time, that's why I post.

My post wasn't to prove that the ending was good or bad. I only explained why the original ending had this form/ structure. Such a structure isn't something you improvise or rush because the form fits the theme and message. Anyone has his opinion, people can like or dislike. Since the beginning, the only moment I post are when people who don't know what narration or literature come and talk about rules (that do not exist!) to try to justify their hate. A real criticism isn't what some here said. That's why there is and will always be a gap between amateur (even people who have been to university can be only amateur) and real critic. I don't care to sound arrogant, but when someone who only read few books (at best), or (worst) has learnt from internet (wikipedia, TVtropes etc... all amateur sources with for most part bad or wrong explanations, and some stupid concepts), and think he can do my job, yes that's irritating.

Anyway, no the higher level has been set since the first game. What you consider to be contradiction, I think, are paradoxes. If you listen to Sovereign there are paradoxes. When you listen to Harbinger, he also uses some paradoxes. The ending was supposed to be the apex of all that so it wasn't possible to have what you were expecting. The whole trilogy is a gradation of revelations. So in Mass Effect case you couldn't have an ending that was "high level" without being full of implicit, paradoxical and using some kind of retcon (what they are doing since Mass Effect 2).

You might dislike it, but the writing is coherent, it goes in the same direction since the first game (I'm not talking about the changes in the gameplay or the strong focus on the characters in Mass Effect, I'm talking about the overall writing).

[Vanilka]

I'm quite busy but today I've got little time, that's why I post.

My post wasn't to prove that the ending was good or bad. I only explained why the original ending had this form/ structure. Such a structure isn't something you improvise or rush because the form fits the theme and message. Anyone has his opinion, people can like or dislike. Since the beginning, the only moment I post are when people who don't know what narration or literature come and talk about rules (that do not exist!) to try to justify their hate. A real criticism isn't what some here said. That's why there is and will always be a gap between amateur (even people who have been to university can be only amateur) and real critic. I don't care to sound arrogant, but when someone who only read few books (at best), or (worst) has learnt from internet (wikipedia, TVtropes etc... all amateur sources with for most part bad or wrong explanations, and some stupid concepts), and think he can do my job, yes that's irritating.

Anyway, no the higher level has been set since the first game. What you consider to be contradiction, I think, are paradoxes. If you listen to Sovereign there are paradoxes. When you listen to Harbinger, he also uses some paradoxes. The ending was supposed to be the apex of all that so it wasn't possible to have what you were expecting. The whole trilogy is a gradation of revelations. So in Mass Effect case you couldn't have an ending that was "high level" without being full of implicit, paradoxical and using some kind of retcon (what they are doing since Mass Effect 2).

You might dislike it, but the writing is coherent, it goes in the same direction since the first game (I'm not talking about the changes in the gameplay or the strong focus on the characters in Mass Effect, I'm talking about the overall writing).

 

Either the medium has succeeded communicating its message or it hasn't. From the reception, it is quite clear. Again, you may notice that not even those who defend the ending see it the way you do and they try to make sense of it on the physical level. Hiding behind terminology doesn't equate decent experience which, yes, an average player is going to want. (Failing to realise that is misjudging your audience.) Calling it a paradox doesn't change the fact that e.g. the whole charade with Sovereign and Saren seems downright absurd given that the brain of the Reapers has been sitting on the Citadel the entire time. I, for one, don't care about literary rules and whatever, but I'm going to notice when the narrative stumbles on the field of logic and reason.

[Natureguy85]

The ending was not improvised, it's impossible because it creates too many relation between themes and structures, that shows the intention.

 

It sure does

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might dislike it, but the writing is coherent, it goes in the same direction since the first game

 

No, it isn't. No, it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Even the focus is different.

[angol fear]

Either the medium has succeeded communicating its message or it hasn't. From the reception, it is quite clear. Again, you may notice that not even those who defend the ending see it the way you do and they try to make sense of it on the physical level. Hiding behind terminology doesn't equate decent experience which, yes, an average player is going to want. (Failing to realise that is misjudging your audience.) Calling it a paradox doesn't change the fact that e.g. the whole charade with Sovereign and Saren seems downright absurd given that the brain of the Reapers has been sitting on the Citadel the entire time. I, for one, don't care about literary rules and whatever, but I'm going to notice when the narrative stumbles on the field of logic and reason.

 

If you mean that from the reception, it failed to communicate its message, it means that I'm not part of the reception. And those who understood the "message" are not part of the reception. So the "majority" who complains is the only part of the players that represent the reception?

I call a paradox what is a paradox. Contradiction is an other thing. Using correct words isn't hiding behind terminology, it's using using the right words with the right concepts.

Anyway if you have a problem with the existence of the catalyst and you consider that it contradicts Mass Effect 1, it means that you want the A.I. to think like an organic.

Logic and reason are not what make something good or not, there are several examples that could be given. Just like quality isn't related to the lack of inconsistencies. Just like a masterpiece isn't technically "perfect" etc.

Once again you can dislike, but if you want to talk about the quality, it's far more difficult than the discussion we can have because it's not subjective and it's not objective.

[Vanilka]

If you mean that from the reception, it failed to communicate its message, it means that I'm not part of the reception. And those who understood the "message" are not part of the reception. So the "majority" who complains is the only part of the players that represent the reception?

I've never said that. However, if majority of the audience the game was made for does have issues understanding or enjoying the piece and can, on the top of that, justify it with reasonable arguments (Of course, not all of them do.), then it does seem like something somewhere might have gone wrong.
 

I call a paradox what is a paradox. Contradiction is an other thing. Using correct words isn't hiding behind terminology, it's using using the right words with the right concepts.

Yet it doesn't explain a thing.
 

Anyway if you have a problem with the existence of the catalyst and you consider that it contradicts Mass Effect 1, it means that you want the A.I. to think like an organic.

Those things don't have anything to do with one another. There's nothing organic about software doing its job.
 

Logic and reason are not what make something good or not, there are several examples that could be given. Just like quality isn't related to the lack of inconsistencies. Just like a masterpiece isn't technically "perfect" etc.

Sure, the writer can create whatever the hell they want, but the point is the setting and audience they create for and that they try to please. (The ME team confirmed that was indeed the case and that they did want to make something that the players would enjoy.) If you have a diamond, then clap your hands, then suddenly have a potato instead, in a setting like Mass Effect's people are going to question how that is possible and they're going to examine the situation and ask questions, which is proven by how people questioned how party members got from being shot at by Harbringer on Earth to the Normandy and consequently the green planet, etc. That might have not been the case with an entirely different setting and/or audience.
 

Once again you can dislike, but if you want to talk about the quality, it's far more difficult than the discussion we can have because it's not subjective and it's not objective.

Well, that's something I can agree with.

[Natureguy85]

 

I call a paradox what is a paradox. Contradiction is an other thing. Using correct words isn't hiding behind terminology, it's using using the right words with the right concepts.

 

A paradox is an apparent contradiction. If you're going to claim a contradiction is a paradox, you'll have to explain how the two things actually do line up.

 

 

 

Anyway if you have a problem with the existence of the catalyst and you consider that it contradicts Mass Effect 1, it means that you want the A.I. to think like an organic.

Logic and reason are not what make something good or not, there are several examples that could be given. Just like quality isn't related to the lack of inconsistencies. Just like a masterpiece isn't technically "perfect" etc.

 

How is wanting consistency with the first game wanting the AI to think like an organic? It is a logical issue, which is usually given to AI in contrast to Organic emotional decision making. For the most part, events in a story should follow a logical progression or it won't make any sense. You can always do differently for a certain kind of story, but it must be done carefully if you want your audience to stay in the story. Unless it's part of their characterization not to, characters should behave logically.

 

While imperfections might not make the entire work bad, that doesn't mean the imperfections themselves are not bad, (unless they are purposely there as part of the art. Though maybe that stops them from being imperfections!) However, the problems with Mass Effects story are plentiful and major enough to declare it bad.

[gothpunkboy89]

 

 

 

No, it isn't. No, it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Even the focus is different.

 

Seriously dude you need to stop quoting that guy.  If this was a political discussion it would be like quoting Sarah Palin. And some how expecting what she says to have any meaning to anyone what isn't a far right hard core conservative.