"Edit: And now I learned that the forums are closing...ruined my day. I have one wish. Let's all spend this last month like friends. Because no matter how hot the conversations got, they were always interesting. Thanks everyone."
The forums are closing?!!!Really?!!!Is that true?If it is,WHY?!
"Edit: And now I learned that the forums are closing...ruined my day. I have one wish. Let's all spend this last month like friends. Because no matter how hot the conversations got, they were always interesting. Thanks everyone."
The forums are closing?!!!Really?!!!Is that true?If it is,WHY?!
For total crappy reasons... you can read it here 
For total crappy reasons... you can read it here
I still don't fully understand why!Because fans spend more time with reddit and stuff and not with their own forums?Is that the reason?If it is even true(which I doubt),that's a very,hmm...stupid reason,really!Are they jealous,or something?!Many threads here have millions of views and conversations.In my opinion the forum is HUGE with a lot going on!And I can safely say,this is the most mature gaming forum I have seen.There are no petty fights and we all really listen to each other and try to understand what everyone is trying to say.The climate is very good and you can't help but feel very comfortable in it,without exaggeration!Also the conversations are really constructive!
If they are really closing it,it truly is just sad!
I still don't fully understand why!Because fans spend more time with reddit and stuff and not with their own forums?Is that the reason?If it is even true(which I doubt),that's a very,hmm...stupid reason,really!Are they jealous,or something?!Many threads here have millions of views and conversations.In my opinion the forum is HUGE with a lot going on!And I can safely say,this is the most mature gaming forum I have seen.There are no petty fights and we all really listen to each other and try to understand what everyone is trying to say.The climate is very good and you can't help but feel very comfortable in it,without exaggeration!Also the conversations are really constructive!
If they are really closing it,it truly is just sad!
Well I have to say that some people are not so mature, but you just have to know how to avoid them 
I for one also had the best time here, and I loved the discussions, in here, elsewhere, and it's a shame they completely want to tear down this archive of posts and awesome things that accumulated here over the years
I think there's some more reasons behind it, maybe the are tired of trying to moderate this place, or it truly is because the devs don't come here anymore. But what they don't get is that people don't come here for the devs, they come here to talk to other fans. Oh well.
Whatever the reasons behind this decision, it is stupid. I don't use any of this social media stuff, let alone the fact that you cannot have proper discussion on them... And reddit also already stated they are afraid of people from here signing up there, and that they will ban some users right away. What a nice welcome...
But I have the hope that all of this can be saved in some way. I know that some users here are making plans to relocate this forum, and I hope it works. Once they can show us something, how it all looks and feels, they might need volunteers for some things. Not sure what exactly it is, but it makes me feel better a little at least 
First, I'm not using big words. Second, I only say that your definition of "coherence" is wrong because it's incomplete (you only focuse on one aspect of coherence, and with your definition you're going to ignore the other aspects). I won't explain anything because you will not try to understand what I say. For example, you only focus on few words in order to complain about the lack of explanation but if you really had taken two second to understand them you would have see my point.
Right, you just claim I'm wrong and leave it at that. No explanation of where or what I'm supposedly leaving out other than throwing around terms with no context or explanation.
It was well explained but you were thinking that what it was wrong that's why you have posted this video. Do you think that it's what you have done? I think that if you use this video it's because you think that he is right about narrative coherence and you use him as an argument (he gives his arguments so why should we argue and explain our point of view if someone has already made it?). So I think that now you are playing with words because you know that if you have posted it it's because you think that he is right. When we "explain well" something like "what is narrative coherence?" it means that we explain it entirely, we give a valid explanation. My point about the video is that he is wrong because it's incomplete, so when I ask how do you know he explains well this concept, it's actually implicit that it's related to "right or wrong".
But I understand that you could have simplified my question and turned it into "his explanation was clear?".
Sure, I agree, but that's not what we were discussing at the time. I haven't "simplified" your question, I took the best interpretation of the words you used. If you meant something else, you should have asked something else.
You don't need me to give you a list (I know you were ironic here). Tolkien as a critic is not serious no. You want me to say that Tolkien isn't a seirous writer but I have never said that. While I repeated that I like tolkien (as a writer) you try to change what I said into Tolien isn't serious.
Sure there are masterpieces in cinema but I honestly doubt that you have seen Godard's films, Bela Tarr's film, Luis Bunuel's films, Jose Mojica Marins films etc...
If I talked about structuralism it's because it's a very good basis to analysis. But it's only a basis which has to completed with other aspect of analysis, different approach of a text (in his general meaning).
If you read literarure, you should pay attention to the words used, to the punctuation, the rythm of the sentences etc... The more you get into it, the more you understand what narration is. And in a visual media, it's quite the same : the music, how it is shot, the structure of the images etc... these are part of the narration.
Tolkien doesn't need to be a critic, though probably could have been. He's a writer. I'm using the methods and thoughts of a serious writer in my critique of other writing.
Yes, all of those things are part of telling the story. What's your point?
I agree. But what I meant is that it depends on what is the purpose of the wirter. If the reader has some expectations that are very different to what the writer wants, sure there will be a problem and the reader won't follow the writing, he will break with the "immersion", he will refuse it. Sometimes, maybe it's not the "fun" that the writer wants and that's what the reader is looking for, and here the problem doesn't come from the narration.
It does if the writer doesn't understand their audience. Also, as I pointed out when I get asked questions about knowing the story better than the writers, there can be a big difference in what a writer intends and what a writer actually does, just like in conversation. If you misunderstand something I say, it might be that you couldn't comprehend it, but it may also have been poor communication on my part.
We are back to criticism of literature as some kind kind of pretentious pretend that it´s science thing. i worked in soft sciences, seems my field of study was honest enoughnot to think of itself as hard as physiscs.Let´s ignore that it´s a new medium, because mr.critic say it doesn´t matter and ignore that it´s borrowing from RPGs to pretend that whatever mr.critic says has any relevance. It doesn´t. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is an attempt to apply " I am a critic of literature" to new media, beacuse uh well "what is your field good for, it´s obsolete." It seems ,someone missed the memo, we are not in Cannes.
No, it's an art form but there are still standards to art forms and what makes them one kind versus another. And almost, if not truly, any of these "rules" can be "broken" in the hands of someone who really knows what they're doing but it's harder to pull off. Audiences have certain expectations depending on the medium and genre as well.
I think there's some more reasons behind it, maybe the are tired of trying to moderate this place, or it truly is because the devs don't come here anymore. But what they don't get is that people don't come here for the devs, they come here to talk to other fans.
I say one of the biggest things is that folks come here to get answers and information. Not just members, but folks who aren't members.
Someone uses google to find out how all squadmates can survive the suicide mission, some of the links will lead to this site. They look through the thread. See it and say, cool. Then go back to playing the game and apply what they read to their playthrough. Or if a member, he/she either makes a thread or asks in a thread that already exists, about the best way to have all squadmates survive if everyone is not loyal.
I look at it as bsn is the central hub for information and answers for their games
I'm just going to say it - the idea that the ending violated the rules of the fictional world that Bioware created for Mass Effect is laughable.
It depends on what you mean by "the rules." Things had been falling apart since ME2 so if you mean things like lore and retcons, then that damage was largely done well before the ending.
Edited for clarity. Thanks to gothpunkboy for pointing out confusing phrasing.
Modifié par Natureguy85, 01 août 2016 - 01:01 .
I think it depends on what you mean by "the rules", since that's the basis for the ongoing "bad writing" conversation. Your argument is that Mass Effect 3 broke rules of its fictional world with the Catalyst, and this inconsistency broke immersion of players, and thus "bad writing". What are these rules that you think were broken?It depends on what you mean by "the rules." Things had been falling apart since ME2 so if you mean things like how Relays work then that damage was largely done well before the ending.
It depends on what you mean by "the rules." Things had been falling apart since ME2 so if you mean things like how Relays work then that damage was largely done well before the ending.
Yea what changed about how the Relays work?
The rules stayed the same you seem to take small things and expand them into massive things so it can fit with what you want to have happened.
I think it depends on what you mean by "the rules", since that's the basis for the ongoing "bad writing" conversation. Your argument is that Mass Effect 3 broke rules of its fictional world with the Catalyst, and this inconsistency broke immersion of players, and thus "bad writing". What are these rules that you think were broken?
And if its a not a specific rule, then why does the character of the Catalyst not fit with the story?
I thought the Catalyst fit just fine.
No, that conversation had to do with Angol's comment that we had to analyze the story only from outside it. I disagreed saying the story had to remain internally consistent. The Catalyst more breaks the "rules" of story telling.
The primary problem is the plot hole it creates regarding Mass Effect 1. Everything that happens becomes silly once it is revealed that the Reaper Mother Brain is onboard the Citadel already. Another problem is that it is only foreshadowed with a few lines of dialogue which are quickly passed over and never brought up again, even when facing the Catalyst. It would have been cool to mention the idea of the Reapers having a master to TIM when discussing if Conrol would work or not.
The other problem I'll mention right now is a gameplay issue. After the tense and climactic beam run, the action is slammed to a halt by Harbinger shooting Shepard. Then you get the slow, weird stumble to the beam, more slow stumble to Anderson, then a weird conversation with TIM, a possible conversation with Anderson, then a one sided "conversation" with a new character whom you can not influence in any way and have to select from one of the choices it offers.
Yea what changed about how the Relays work?
That was poor phrasing on my part. I didn't mean how the Relays work specifically, but I see how the way I phrased the comment would make it sound like that. I simply meant something like that. But this ends up being perfect example of what I was talking about regarding author intent; sometimes the author doesn't communicate what they intended to. I edited the original comment to be better.
I think you're actually agreeing with Angol.No, that conversation had to do with Angol's comment that we had to analyze the story only from outside it. I disagreed saying the story had to remain internally consistent.
...
The lack of an explanation for the Catalyst's behavior isn't a plot hole. The Catalyst could have simply been dormant, or content to act as an observer so as not to give itself away. It was dormant for most of Mass Effect 3, so its behavior doesn't exactly break the story's internal consistency....
The Catalyst more breaks the "rules" of story telling.
The primary problem is the plot hole it creates regarding Mass Effect 1. Everything that happens becomes silly once it is revealed that the Reaper Mother Brain is onboard the Citadel already.
...
The Catalyst's appearance was clearly meant to be a twist ending. I wouldn't say there was much foreshadowing, and what was foreshadowed was just meant to support its appearance upon the player's reflection, which it does. Twist endings that reframe everything that came before happen in stories all the time....
Another problem is that it is only foreshadowed with a few lines of dialogue which are quickly passed over and never brought up again, even when facing the Catalyst. It would have been cool to mention the idea of the Reapers having a master to TIM when discussing if Conrol would work or not.
...
I'm not sure what you expected, but I thought it worked just fine. Marauder Shields is annoying (because I can't aim), but the rest of the sequence works. I really enjoy that standoff with TIM and Anderson. It's one of my favorite sequences of the game. I don't see an internal inconsistency here....
The other problem I'll mention right now is a gameplay issue. After the tense and climactic beam run, the action is slammed to a halt by Harbinger shooting Shepard. Then you get the slow, weird stumble to the beam, more slow stumble to Anderson, then a weird conversation with TIM, a possible conversation with Anderson, then a one sided "conversation" with a new character whom you can not influence in any way and have to select from one of the choices it offers.
I'm not sure what you expected, but I thought it worked just fine. Marauder Shields is annoying (because I can't aim), but the rest of the sequence works. I really enjoy that standoff with TIM and Anderson. It's one of my favorite sequences of the game. I don't see an internal inconsistency here.
The problem I have is that after Shepard is shot, voices and even Coates are heard saying fallback, regroup. The forces have been decimated. At the same time Harbinger flies off to wherever. Why didn't Anderson get on the comms to tell everyone to ignore that order and get to the beam since Harbinger flew away. Or did no one see the giant reaper fly away? Anderson did say at the fob there is no stepping back, no retreat. What changed? Was it because Bioware only wanted Anderson and Shepard on the Citadel for the touchy-feely scene?
The other thing is there was no reason for Anderson to be up there. Have TIM already with a weapon, instead of pulling it out of Anderson's backside, and the scene plays out the same.
The problem I have is that after Shepard is shot, voices and even Coates are heard saying fallback, regroup. The forces have been decimated. At the same time Harbinger flies off to wherever. Why didn't Anderson get on the comms to tell everyone to ignore that order and get to the beam since Harbinger flew away. Or did no one see the giant reaper fly away? Anderson did say at the fob there is no stepping back, no retreat. What changed? Was it because Bioware only wanted Anderson and Shepard on the Citadel for the touchy-feely scene?
The other thing is there was no reason for Anderson to be up there. Have TIM already with a weapon, instead of pulling it out of Anderson's backside, and the scene plays out the same.
Harbinger only left once the forces were decimated seeing no more threat to reach the beam thus the Citadel.
Even if you had Anderson tell everyone to ignore the order and keep charging Harbinger would have sat there till the force was completely wiped out anyways.
The one point you always seem to miss when talking about this part of the game is that Harbinger left the battle in space for the singular purpose of stopping and protecting the beam from the assault by Anderson and the group. Meaning Harbinger was only going to stop once the group was repelled and they retreated or he killed everyone who is even thinking about getting near the beam.
Harbinger only left once the forces were decimated seeing no more threat to reach the beam thus the Citadel.
ok
Even if you had Anderson tell everyone to ignore the order and keep charging Harbinger would have sat there till the force was completely wiped out anyways.
He sat there alright. I guess it was his twin brother that flew away
The one point you always seem to miss when talking about this part of the game is that Harbinger left the battle in space for the singular purpose of stopping and protecting the beam from the assault by Anderson and the group. Meaning Harbinger was only going to stop once the group was repelled and they retreated or he killed everyone who is even thinking about getting near the beam.
The point you keep missing is that Harbinger was flying away as Coates and the others were on the comms saying retreat. I don't believe it was that hard to notice a giant looking reaper leave the scene. Meaning Anderson would also notice the reaper flying away and tell the whatever forces that are left to disregard that order and make another push to the beam
I say one of the biggest things is that folks come here to get answers and information. Not just members, but folks who aren't members.
Someone uses google to find out how all squadmates can survive the suicide mission, some of the links will lead to this site. They look through the thread. See it and say, cool. Then go back to playing the game and apply what they read to their playthrough. Or if a member, he/she either makes a thread or asks in a thread that already exists, about the best way to have all squadmates survive if everyone is not loyal.
I look at it as bsn is the central hub for information and answers for their games
This info needs to be salvaged somewhere before it's gone forever.
"Edit: And now I learned that the forums are closing...ruined my day. I have one wish. Let's all spend this last month like friends. Because no matter how hot the conversations got, they were always interesting. Thanks everyone."
Edit: Something is messed with the site. Looks like parts of the forum is in Russian. Was fine a few days ago. /shrug
Right, you just claim I'm wrong and leave it at that. No explanation of where or what I'm supposedly leaving out other than throwing around terms with no context or explanation.
I gave you examples. I develop nothing because it would actually take pages and pages to explain this. But since we're in a forum you would interrupt the explanation to make me explain again each sentence. I know how haters work. I've already done it (trying to explain but facing someone who didn't want to understand). So when I see that you refuse the very basic of it, I know that it's you who has to go and see by yourself the theories. As long as I will try to explain to you, you will turn what I say into something else.
Anyway, just an example : Stéphane Mallarmé said something very interesting : "we don't write with ideas, we write with words". How do you understand that?
Sure, I agree, but that's not what we were discussing at the time. I haven't "simplified" your question, I took the best interpretation of the words you used. If you meant something else, you should have asked something else.
You didn't take the best interpretation. You actually decided to ignore things to change the interpretation. You have already done this when I used Galileo Galilei example. You might be proud of it, but it actually show that you can make relation between things. You have to be guided everytime, which explains why you need to much explicit informations in the discussion and in Mass Effect too.
Tolkien doesn't need to be a critic, though probably could have been. He's a writer. I'm using the methods and thoughts of a serious writer in my critique of other writing.
Yes, all of those things are part of telling the story. What's your point?
Once again you can't make the difference between explanation of an aesthetic and a real explanation of the process of writing and reading. I'm pretty sure that you don't have a child. Otherwise you would have tried to teach him to read. If you would have done it you would have seen that the process of reading is related to the way he can represent, he can turn words into abstraction. You would have seen that it take years. No magic here. You can use a method based on what Tolkien has said if you want. As I've said, Tolkien's quotation is beautiful but in real life, the reality has nothing to do with what he wrote. A serious writer doesn't mean a serious critic.
But I notice that you've bolded "I", so you insist on the fact that it's your point of view, don't you? So the strong emphasis makes me think that you start to consider the subjectivity of your method.
My point is simple : a lot of people, including you, talk about narration but actually never analyze it. There are a lot of thing that are intentionally ignored because people don't know what to do with them, how to explain them, how to interpret it. I've never seen anybody here talking about the relation between the music and the events. Nobody talked about the rythm of the structure. These are part of narration and they are important parts. So focusing on one aspect only gives one aspect. You can't talk about narration if you forget most parts of what narration is. so no, what you said and what the youtuber said about narrative coherence are not true because they are incomplete, and you ignore/forget the most important parts of it.
It does if the writer doesn't understand their audience. Also, as I pointed out when I get asked questions about knowing the story better than the writers, there can be a big difference in what a writer intends and what a writer actually does, just like in conversation. If you misunderstand something I say, it might be that you couldn't comprehend it, but it may also have been poor communication on my part.
And here we go for the populism. You talk about video game as a form of art and here you say that the writer doesn't understand his audience when the reader has other expectations. Don't you see that you actually contradict yourself? Let's see : Art should fit to expectations? If you think so then I suggest you to see the history of art. I'm not saying that it always has to break with the expectations. I'm saying that you want to enslave it to the expectations. You actually talk about product not art. That's something i've already said to you. You didn't understand what I was saying.
Anyway, for the problem about writer intent/form, if you consider that the form is intended, and the players disagree because it doesn't fit their expectations, then what is your answer? Mass Effect form is what intended. The original form was what they wanted. The extended cut, show that they didn't want to have too much explicit. Bioware defended their game. So here, there was no problem between the intention and the form.
BSN is closing down? wowzers.....
Mmmmh... did you read the beginning of our discussion? It all started with Natureguy85 saying : "I'm doing critique and pointing out its objective problems."(post 3285) so thanks for you irrelevant post. Do you really think that video game is a new medium? You must be very young to think that. Video game has tried to be like cinema for a long time. Do you know Dragon's Lair (1983)? And what RPG has to do with the narrative coherence? Complaints and complaints...
There are PM´s, if you want t have a private conversation. Compared to other forms of media, videogames are the toddler in the room.
What do you mean,is it hacked or something?!
When I'm not logged in, it works fine. When I am logged in, it looks like parts are in Russian.
I didn't touch any of the language settings on the site.
I guess it turns out the site was detecting my language in Russian (at the bottom of the page), but my keyboard and region settings in Windows were set to English. Weird.
Works fine now.
The primary problem is the plot hole it creates regarding Mass Effect 1. Everything that happens becomes silly once it is revealed that the Reaper Mother Brain is onboard the Citadel already. Another problem is that it is only foreshadowed with a few lines of dialogue which are quickly passed over and never brought up again, even when facing the Catalyst. It would have been cool to mention the idea of the Reapers having a master to TIM when discussing if Conrol would work or not.
Retour en haut