3526 réponses à ce sujet

[rossler]

First and foremost, life isn't fair. If you expect it to be far...you are in for a bad time.

 

Second, I do like how you cite Stanly Woo from 2012. If only others could cite the great Stanly Woo, especially in regards to the indoctrination theory.

 

Now, in the regards to "learning from mistakes" we can classify a mistake by looking at the current understanding of right/wrong or good vs bad design regarding story/narrative or game mechanic development. In those cases, yes ME3's ending is poorliy designed (remedied with the EC) and the mechanical delivery was botched (mostly removed in the EC). Anyone asking for or demanding a stupid Happy Ending or another ending after the EC is just silly, it is impossible to deliver. I don't say cater to every weeping whim of the fanbase - that is the citadel DLC. Rather, create a solid well made product that holds up to scrutiny. If you cannot do that and at the same time demand people to call it brilliant and reject criticism, then you deserve to go the way of the dinosaur. Also, how do the writers disagreeing with me make me incorrect? An arguement to authority is not really the best way to make a rational point.

 

And on the topic of PR/advertising vs what was delivered. You tell me if this adverstised segment of the game ACTUALLY happened or was spliced together to make it seem like the game was more dynamic. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy into hype too much. But showing something different that happens the same way in the product is a bit low brow.

 

Also, when it comes to criticism, yeah there were a number of people spitting vitrol in the early days fo the ME3 crapstorm. Vitrol is not he best way to express logical criticism - ever. However, when someone does (or many do) express criticism in a rational, logical way bioware really should pay attention as to what they say and look into refining their products for the future. This is, essentially, how the scientific method works and how we - as a species- have come so far. Someone creates something, feedback from use is obtained, and changes are made for future releases are made - if any.

 

I know life isn't fair. Look at the current financial/oil situation. Lots of people out of work.

 

Why do you keep bringing up the indoctrination thing again? You're not quoting what I said.

 

Like I said before, look around you. There's plenty of people who liked the ending, thought it was well made, etc. Then there's some that don't. You're going to get both kinds.

 

They didn't reject criticism, just the vitriol and such. In your first link, there's some definition of what narrative coherence is. I'm sure the writers know what narrative coherence is. Or anything else in those links. It's like trying to tell a mechanic how to fix a car. He already knows how to do it. The writers already know how to write and what not. You clearly think they don't. So to them, that is vitriol because it's like putting someone down.

 

The EC was an attempt to fix horrible mistakes in the original ending.

Perceived mistakes.

 

True, but they are wrong.

And you're right?

 

Because everyone should learn from their mistakes. That's how we get better.

Fans also have some mistakes to learn from too. Such as not overreacting so much to the ending. You guys gained media attention as well as from the FTC and BBB.

 

Most people would simply brush this off.

[angol fear]

Based on what?

 

Aristotle's poetics, that you obviously did not read.

[oddball_bg]

That's what the ending to ME3 was. Well said.

 

 

 

That's not the definition of "catharsis." Where did you get that and how are you criticizing other people's use of the word?

 

From Webster:

1. 1 :  purgation

2. 2 a :  purification or purgation of the emotions (as pity and fear) primarily through art b :  a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension

3. 3 :  elimination of a complex by bringing it to consciousness and affording it expression

 

 

For your second point, the Reapers are the enemy. I don't care about their motivations. Their actions are worth opposing. They are wrong and bad and need to go away.

 

 

 

Why would you want the end to muddle the story rather than resolve the conflict? You wanted a new character to vomit moronic exposition on you at the last minute?

 

Actually I do know what it means and posted the definition above. You still haven't explained it, but rather just criticize people for using it wrong. So tell me about it, smart guy.

 

 

 

Such an idea can work but it depends on the story. It can work in Spiderman 3 because Flint Marko isn't driven by greed or hate, but is a desperate man in hard circumstances. While we don't excuse his actions, we sympathize with his motivations. The Reapers don't have this going for them. They are murder machines with a stupid motivation.

 

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Firstly, the extended editions were cut content being reinserted. They weren't new stuff shoved in to fix mistakes. Secondly they added some flavor, but didn't change the story. They are cool, but the theatrical releases still work. This can not be said of Mass Effect 3. The EC was an attempt to fix horrible mistakes in the original ending.

 

 

 

True, but they are wrong.

 

 

 

Because everyone should learn from their mistakes. That's how we get better.

"That's not the definition of "catharsis." Where did you get that and how are you criticizing other people's use of the word?"

 

I haven't seen it anywhere,I don't need to.This is my definition.Glad you looked it up finally!

 

I am criticizing the use of the term in Shepard and Anderson sitting and talking scene.

[Natureguy85]

 

They didn't reject criticism, just the vitriol and such. In your first link, there's some definition of what narrative coherence is. I'm sure the writers know what narrative coherence is. Or anything else in those links. It's like trying to tell a mechanic how to fix a car. He already knows how to do it. The writers already know how to write and what not. You clearly think they don't. So to them, that is vitriol because it's like putting someone down.

 

Just because someone is a mechanic, it doesn't mean they are a good mechanic or even really know what they are doing. If a mechanic tells me I need to put diesel fuel in my car, I'm going to tell him that he's wrong.

 

 

Perceived mistakes.

 

No. Real, explainable failures in writing.

 

 

 

And you're right?

 

Yes

 

 

 

Fans also have some mistakes to learn from too. Such as not overreacting so much to the ending. You guys gained media attention as well as from the FTC and BBB.

 

Most people would simply brush this off.

 

Maybe, but that isn't a defense of the ending or an argument against the point.

 

 

 

"That's not the definition of "catharsis." Where did you get that and how are you criticizing other people's use of the word?"

 

I haven't seen it anywhere,I don't need to.This is my definition.Glad you looked it up finally!

 

I am criticizing the use of the term in Shepard and Anderson sitting and talking scene.

 

So you criticize people for using the actual definition and not your personal, made up one. Got it.

[Natureguy85]

Aristotle's poetics, that you obviously did not read.

 

Nice try. What in specific? Explain what you mean rather than just throwing around Aristotle's name to sound smart

[oddball_bg]

Just because someone is a mechanic, it doesn't mean they are a good mechanic or even really know what they are doing. If a mechanic tells me I need to put diesel fuel in my car, I'm going to tell him that he's wrong.

 

 

 

No. Real, explainable failures in writing.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Maybe, but that isn't a defense of the ending or an argument against the point.

 

 

 

 

So you criticize people for using the actual definition and not your personal, made up one. Got it.

Mine is no different from the Webster one.It's just that catharsis is much much more than just inner resolve and peace.That's the basis of it.I tried to explained THAT!Now, my English is poorer than yours because it's not my native language but I tried to explained it as best as I could,because,as I said, it's far far more complexed than just inner resolve.

 

Also,YOU tell me how this fits into Shepard/Anderson scene!

[Natureguy85]

Mine is no different from the Webster one.It's just that catharsis is much much more than just inner resolve and peace.That's the basis of it.I tried to explained THAT!Now, my English is poorer than yours because it's not my native language but I tried to explained it as best as I could,because,as I said, it's far far more complexed than just inner resolve.

 

Also,YOU tell me how this fits into Shepard/Anderson scene!

 

Ok, yeah, the language barrier is a good reason for your poor communication. Your "definition" is more about character development. The word has to do with the release of emotion. Shepard and Anderson are finally able to drop the tough exterior and express just how tired and worn down they are from the conflict. Usually the word is associated with a stronger outward expression, like crying or raging, so maybe that is the source of the dispute. You could make the argument that it isn't a strong example, but the arrogant condescension is unwarranted. 

[Sheridan31]

 

Such an idea can work but it depends on the story. It can work in Spiderman 3 because Flint Marko isn't driven by greed or hate, but is a desperate man in hard circumstances. While we don't excuse his actions, we sympathize with his motivations. The Reapers don't have this going for them. They are murder machines with a stupid motivation.

 

I hear you saying: That a story where forgiveness and a cooperate peace can happen, but for it you need to see the good motive of the "bad guy" and that you don´t see it by the reaper?

 

I also do point out that empathising and sympathising with the reapers good motive is difficult, especially since it is only brought up in the last minutes. At the same time however i believe deep down, even BEHIND  (not in) anger/hatred, everyone has a good motive, in case of the reaper: perserving life. Which is a great motivation. I am still with you that the way they are doing it is "stupid", the way there are doing it (killing folks and making the remaining a reaper), does not fullfil that need at all, in the contrary.

 

To me whats missing to make it such a peacefull ending, is the starchild regognizing that it not just didn´t work, but it triggers a lot of suffering, and that he regreds it truely to shepard. That would also make it more believeable that the ending, despite the indoctrination sights, was happening for real.

[Natureguy85]

I hear you saying: That a story where forgiveness and a cooperate peace can happen, but for it you need to see the good motive of the "bad guy" and that you don´t see it by the reaper?

 

I also do point out that empathising and sympathising with the reapers good motive is difficult, especially since it is only brought up in the last minutes. At the same time however i believe deep down, even BEHIND  (not in) anger/hatred, everyone has a good motive, in case of the reaper: perserving life. Which is a great motivation. I am still with you that the way they are doing it is "stupid", the way there are doing it (killing folks and making the remaining a reaper), does not fullfil that need at all, in the contrary.

 

To me whats missing to make it such a peacefull ending, is the starchild regognizing that it not just didn´t work, but it triggers a lot of suffering, and that he regreds it truely to shepard. That would also make it more believeable that the ending, despite the indoctrination sights, was happening for real.

 

 

Correct. The Reapers are not the least bit sympathetic. They are broken machines that need to stop and go away. Their methods undermine their seemingly good motivation to "preserve life." What value is preserving them in the "jar" of a Reaper? Not every species that is killed off is made into a Reaper. Do they have no value? Reapers abandon those they Indoctrinate, so obviously the Reapers don't care about individuals. Finally, remember that their mandate to preserve life was far a nefarious purpose. The Leviathans only wanted to preserve other Organics to serve them as thralls.

[oddball_bg]

Ok, yeah, the language barrier is a good reason for your poor communication. Your "definition" is more about character development. The word has to do with the release of emotion. Shepard and Anderson are finally able to drop the tough exterior and express just how tired and worn down they are from the conflict. Usually the word is associated with a stronger outward expression, like crying or raging, so maybe that is the source of the dispute. You could make the argument that it isn't a strong example, but the arrogant condescension is unwarranted. 

Dude,even with my poor communication I can still tell you that you absolutely miss the point of what catharsis is.Shepard and Anderson dropping the tough exterior and express just how tired and worn down they are from the conflict is not a catharsis.I am not gonna bother anymore,maybe you gonna live through a catharsis on your own and then you will understand!

[Natureguy85]

Dude,even with my poor communication I can still tell you that you absolutely miss the point of what catharsis is.Shepard and Anderson dropping the tough exterior and express just how tired and worn down they are from the conflict is not a catharsis.I am not gonna bother anymore,maybe you gonna live through a catharsis on your own and then you will understand!

 

Maybe it doesn't fit, but you'd have to argue that using the actual definition, not your imaginary one. Let me know if you want to change the definition of any other words.

[oddball_bg]

Maybe it doesn't fit, but you'd have to argue that using the actual definition, not your imaginary one. Let me know if you want to change the definition of any other words.

Imaginary???You went too far!Don't get offended but judging by your profile name you must be 30/31 years old.I am now feeling really embarrassed that I tried to explain what a catharsis is to a 30/31 year old person.

[Natureguy85]

Imaginary???You went too far!Don't get offended but judging by your profile name you must be 30/31 years old.I am now feeling really embarrassed that I tried to explain what a catharsis is to a 30/31 year old person.

 

Yes, but I learned to read a dictionary a long time ago.

[Ithurael]

 

Why do you keep bringing up the indoctrination thing again? You're not quoting what I said.

 

Oh it is just me being me. If you want IT or some kind of indoctrination headcanon purveyed as the actual product, you are markedly incorrect

 

 

Like I said before, look around you. There's plenty of people who liked the ending, thought it was well made, etc. Then there's some that don't. You're going to get both kinds.

 

On that I do agree, and there are those that like the ending and know it is flawed and those the like the ending and seem to reject any flaws by way of headcanon. Liking something but being aware of its flaws is important and spares you from potentially being seen as delusional or suffering from a cognitive bias. I loved the ending to Legacy of the Void, this doesn't mean I do not see the retcons and narrative issues it had. I loved Tron:Legacy, but I am fully aware of its shortcomings. You can still like a product while being aware of its flaws. However, simply saying that something has no flaws and then ignoring blatant facts is incredibly misguided and very well expresses the issue of a Brand Identity Cognitive Bias or Fanboyism.

 

 

They didn't reject criticism, just the vitriol and such. In your first link, there's some definition of what narrative coherence is. I'm sure the writers know what narrative coherence is. Or anything else in those links. It's like trying to tell a mechanic how to fix a car. He already knows how to do it. The writers already know how to write and what not. You clearly think they don't. So to them, that is vitriol because it's like putting someone down.

 

You are making an argument to authority here rossler (one you have made many times over). How then do we know that Stephanie Meyer is a bad writer, Uwe Boll, you/me/anyone? It is simple, we look at the standard convention of Narrative Coherence and we look how the product stands up. Now rossler, using no headcanon, interpretation or redefinition does the ending hold up?

 

 

Perceived mistakes.

 

Someone did not read through those two cited points in their entirety. These are actual mistakes. Please read through in entirety and verify on all sources.

 

 

 

Fans also have some mistakes to learn from too. Such as not overreacting so much to the ending. You guys gained media attention as well as from the FTC and BBB.

 

This part is the only thing I genuinly agree on. I never much liked the amount of vitrol and crazyness being flung at Bioware. However, for every ranting and raving angry customer there were many more presenting logical and factual reasons why the ending was broken and poor quality. The FTC complaint was a bit much but in its own way rather valid since they did do a bait and switch for the finale as well as many developer promises & even pre release footage

[angol fear]

Yes, but I learned to read a dictionary a long time ago.

Yes you can copy-paste a basic internet dictionary to talk about about a concept that is philosophical or aesthetic (depends on our perception of what catharsis is).

[Little Princess Peach]

m sorry i cant read that wall of text can you seperate it a tad pweeeze D:

 

I skipped right to the end of the wall and for what it's worth glad you liked it me.....im never playing me again

[Natureguy85]

Yes you can copy-paste a basic internet dictionary to talk about about a concept that is philosophical or aesthetic (depends on our perception of what catharsis is).

 

The definition of the word is concrete. Perception is irrelevant there. Our perception only matters when we discuss if a particular scene or action fits that definition. However, oddball is using an incorrect definition of the word. We can't discuss if a scene fits it if he insists on making up his own definition.

[angol fear]

Carthasis isn't really the same for Plato, Aristotle or Freud for instance. But you must be right.

[KrrKs]

Yes you can copy-paste a [reference] to talk about about a concept [...]

Irony is great, isn't it

[Angry_Elcor]

 

It seems so long ago. Sort of like a few years after the war is over, you can't quite wrap your head around how much better life is now.

[Natureguy85]

Carthasis isn't really the same for Plato, Aristotle or Freud for instance. But you must be right.

 

You're throwing around impressive names without getting into the ideas behind them again, I see. Words change over time and I have been using the modern definition. If you wanted to use the definition used in the past by a particular person, you should actually evoke that scholar. None of those fit the definition oddball was using.

 

Aristotle and Freud used the term in different contexts (dramatic vs psychological) so they really aren't comparable. While the concept might have existed, the term is attributed to Aristotle after Plato's death.

[oddball_bg]

The definition of the word is concrete. Perception is irrelevant there. Our perception only matters when we discuss if a particular scene or action fits that definition. However, oddball is using an incorrect definition of the word. We can't discuss if a scene fits it if he insists on making up his own definition.

Wow,Natureguy...just wow!!!I don't really know what to say.I gave you my definition,you saw if it fits to the Webster's one,you saw that it's explained differently and you go on saying I am wrong!Are you kidding me?!Catharsis is a pretty subjective thing,it's not maths.This is my take on it.It's NOT WRONG,it features everything said in the description,just differently!Before you saw it you didn't even know what it was,you saw it's not word for word the same,and your mind tells you it must be wrong!Just WOW!I said I wouldn't bother,but come on!

 

Maybe if you see another description explained differently than Webster's one you would assume Webster's one is wrong,right?

 

The definition of the word is NOT concrete.Not everything is easily explainable with a straightforward explanation.Especially such a subjective thing as catharsis.

 

You know what,after all this I still don't think you understand what it means!If you did you would never say that the word is concrete!

[Dantriges]

So what´s the point in using a word that means something different to different people then and then waste how many posts on this debate?

 

 

Irony is great, isn't it

 

Yeah, I should bookmark it and post a link every time we get another Angolism like "what is art?" and then berating people for not delivering the answer teacher expects to hear.

[Natureguy85]

Wow,Natureguy...just wow!!!I don't really know what to say.I gave you my definition,you saw if it fits to the Webster's one,you saw that it's explained differently and you go on saying I am wrong!Are you kidding me?!Catharsis is a pretty subjective thing,it's not maths.This is my take on it.It's NOT WRONG,it features everything said in the description,just differently!Before you saw it you didn't even know what it was,you saw it's not word for word the same,and your mind tells you it must be wrong!Just WOW!I said I wouldn't bother,but come on!

 

Maybe if you see another description explained differently than Webster's one you would assume Webster's one is wrong,right?

 

The definition of the word is NOT concrete.Not everything is easily explainable with a straightforward explanation.Especially such a subjective thing as catharsis.

 

You know what,after all this I still don't think you understand what it means!If you did you would never say that the word is concrete!

 

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton

 

You're just rambling like a crazy person now. Your "definition" is something totally different from the dictionary and classical definitions of the word. That's fine if you want to work with your own definition, but how then can you rant over and over about how people are using the word wrong? Can they not also have their own definition? Why should we subscribe to your definition?

[Iakus]

 

Fans also have some mistakes to learn from too. Such as not overreacting so much to the ending. You guys gained media attention as well as from the FTC and BBB.

 

Most people would simply brush this off.

Maybe it was really really bad and deserved all that attention?