Minecraft or Mass Effect? Full frontal liberty, exploration and creation without end or instruction or detailed and engaging narrative decision trees, which of these options epitomizes agency for you? Do you prefer to see your actions addressed through complex mechanics or storylines? Neither? Both?
Was looking at this thread initially at uni, and though I couldn't post at the time, it seemed an interesting question which I gave some thought.
I would have to say each have their appeals for different reasons. Whilst I've spent a lot longer in Minecraft than I have on Mass Effect 1 and 2, the choices presented in Mass Effect had a lot more impact to me, and I'd say a greater degree of agency too.
I won't put my following story in spoilers, as I imagine the huge majority have either played the first Mass Effect, already know, or have no interest in playing it and thus don't mind spoilers, but in any case, this is the spoiler warning here.
One particular choice I'd single out was assualting the base near the end (forgive my lack of detail, it's been a while) whereby I had heard spoilers that a main companion would die. I was presented with a choice whereby I could send Kade or Ashley off on their own, though it would be more dangerous for them. I prematurely thought that this might be the suicide mission for the character sent off on their own, and as I preferred Ashley as a character, I sent Kade off on the more dangerous path.
Then we all lived, and I was presented with the choice of who stayed behind with the bomb...
To all observations I could make, this previous choice held no impact mechanically other than "decide which squad mate with which skills you want to keep". Or in other words, I thought it had been about the story, but it had been a gameplay choice, barely different from a "left path / right path" choice in Gears of War...
But I cared about both Kade and Ashley, and even though I preferred Ashley's character and had believed I was sending Kade to his death in order to save Ashley from that fate...
I now chose to save Kade. I let Ashley sacrifice herself.
Because I had already asked too much of Kade. I had let him put himself in danger for the team already, allowing him to do so again felt like asking too much.
Kind of strange that I approached what I initially believed to have been the emotional choice thinking almost mechanically in terms of "Who do I like better? Who would I rather keep on the team?" and ended up at the real choice thinking "Who can I let do this?" For moments like this, I feel that Mass Effect, for me, holds a lot more agency.
Due to the poor handling of the ending, I would prefer Minecraft, spending 200 hours for a bad ending is worse than playing a game that never ends.
However, if Bioware made the combat in ME1 less crappy, then ME1 might be an opponent because it had a good ending that wasn't a total cliffhanger or waste of time.
I think Minecraft should go down as the better game.
Let us ignore the myriad of small and personal decisions then, or the many choices that didn't end up changing as much as you would have liked to keep narrative deviation at bay. Because if a choice doesn't affect perfectly everything on the grandest of grand scales, it's utterly without meaning. This is one of the ways in which, despite assertions to the opposite, many complaints from irate fans still are about the ending. Because things didn't matter in the end the game might as well have gone back and pissed all over their decision at the time, or so it would seem. The tempered and reasonable opinions you find on the internet.
Some people break much earlier. For example, see that video of Mass Effect 2 i posted? that wasnt for decoration. The bad writting and meaninless choices extended all the way to ME2. The ending of ME3 was just a catalyst (pun intended) for all the fans that STILL (somehow) were loyal enough to Bioware to start hating them for its incompetence (4 strikes in a row already with ME2, DA2, Old Republic and ME3)
It was enough for them. The only company they could trust now is just being embarasingly lazy and its defending itself with "Artist Integrity".
Also, i can see how blaming the ending alone is for some people an elegant solution to ilustrate what is wrong with the series. Not only it has the most agresive and damaging plot holes of the series all together in a single place, but it also makes people curious if the "Synthetics will ALWAYS rebel agaisnt Organics" was an actual theme that was ilustrated in the series. It would make people curious enough about the series as a whole to search for answer and to know if the outrage was justified.
Unrelated? you mention that "fans" are "irritated" with the ending, and i go ahead to mention that one doesnt NEED to be a fan nor be emotional invested on the work to know that something is very wrong with the series. In the same way that i dont need to be a chef to tell another that their food is pure poison.
No, I mention that I think your irritation concerns the ending, no real reason to explain why you'd like to argue about it or get into the "Can't rewrite art" debate that's really not a thing unless you choose to make it one (And also, entirely unrelated seeing how neither of us are talking about this or denying that extending or changing the ending is a good idea).
Actually, being a fan or having bought some of the games would at least explain your investment in the debate. As it stands it mostly seems to be an obsession with BioWare, but hang on, you said something else that will make this a little more clear.
Oh, and "something is very wrong" and the games are "pure poison"? Very reasonable, level-headed perspective, that.
So instead of arguing about the facts, you instead critice my semantics and politeness? "pure poison" is a perfect example for what i am ilustrating here, simple and gets the point across. I dont see why i should sacrifice clarity just for political correctness.
Bad writting is universal, we ALL discuss it at some point, fans and non fans, even profesionals that get paid to DO so (like Rpger Ebert) does that mean he is obsessed when he referred his constant dislike of the Bayformers movies? I dont need to be a fan or be invested on.....say, John Romero works to know that Daikatana is utter shite.
Take this example that everyone and their grandma knows:
Alice: "Man, that One More Day comic sucked"
Bob: "What happened?"
A: "Spiderman made a deal with the devil to avoid responsability for HIS actions"
B: "Correct me if i am wrong but.... wasnt the selling point/theme/moral of Spiderman that "With Great Power Comes Great Responsability"? "
A: "Yes"
B: "That means that its thematically repulsive to you know, isnt it?"
A: "Yeah...T_T"
This may be a real shocker to you, but you can have opinions that are based on facts. (This water is wet, the sun is bright, these socks are cozy, etc.)
I can in fact argue that my opinion is factual, because I'm not actually making an argument: I'm making an observation. I argue so that others may understand.
With the proper information at hand, one CAN notice something wrong on a story. I hope that it was painfully clear already. Mass Effect is the gift that keeps on giving, there is just TOO MUCH to work here. Thankfully i only need a few links for people that did the job for me on the site "AWTR - All Were Thematically Revolting"
http://awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe
Oh, and the "Cant rewrite art" is something that pops up every once in a while, its just plain simple (like other discussions) that sooner or later someone will be bound to say "Cant one rewrite Art in general?" after saying "Cant one rewrite ME3?". I just wanted to accelerate the process and didnt work, i apologize
And dont you find weird that a company that was once the vanguard of good storytelling in games since 2000, has now become a tyrant that needs to lie in every turn of a page? whose failures are so abysmal that people make entire channels to point them out? We are witnesssing a fall from grace in their quality writting that the fans have to assume that IT WAS ALL A DREAM to understand the ending they saw.
Look, the fact that somebody on the internet wants to waste their time raging about something in poor videos still doesn't objectively prove anything about the quality of the work discussed (that generally depends on the arguments made, not the mere fact that people are arguing). Let's entertain the idea that what you suggest has any shred of merit to it and BioWare actually is festering and decaying. What exactly do you plan to do about it pal? Tell them that you will not stand for this? Tell them to learn how to write again? Because EA doesn't actually enforce full frontal lobotomies, they still know how to do that.
So Bioware writers still know how to write........and you tell me this after saying before that: Dragon Age 2 and The Old Republic have been objectively proven to be worse
Some evidence would be nice, you know? (and consistency too)
Also, what i am going to do? well, just search for another company that bring better service than Bioware, and pay them for their well done job. That is how Capitalism works. If the competition makes a better product than Bioware then i have no reason to pay them for such a lackbuster work, do i?
Again, not a fan, but i can see that they are no longer relevant.
Sometimes, people make bad things. That's not part of some bizarre scheme to lie and insult their fans, to intentionally make bad games in order to rip you off.
Indeed. Shit happens all the time, it is human to err after all, doesnt it? Bioware doesnt agree on that. Because you see, they have this "Artistic Integrity" thing that makes them inmune to criticism towards their vision. And by vision i mean the work of 2 writers without the input of the others that made the rest of the game script. Fuck those losers right? they are not REAL artist like Casey Hudson or Mac Walters.
It is certainly bizzarre when a company risk his reputation on something this broken, though.
Maybe they tested their audience by making 3 flops first (ME2, DA2 and The Old Republic) and then they got confident on getting away with this one too? Lots of speculations from everyone!!
Oh and it is hardly a conspiracy when the "game journalists" of IGN:
1)Gave high scores to Mass effect 3 also had TONS of adverticements to the game just NEXT to the very reviews that were supposed objective and unbiased.
2)Had Jessica Chobot be present in the game itself as a character you interact
3)IGN was the one that coined the term of "Gamer Entitlement" (very quickly i might add) when the ME3 ending fiasco started. (Love how the haters are "a vocal minority" too)
Better preserve that status quo!! or else no tasty ad revenue for them.
Now, i know that they are NOT the only people working hard on making good stories (Obsidian comes to mind) and there exist already games that had the Save Import that affects the plot, so its not like Bioware made something completely innovative:
That seems to be supposed to qualify your previous outburst, but admitting that there are other companies in the world doesn't make your obsession with this one any less of a thing. Also, nobody's been talking about whether or not save importing is innovative, the point is as you might say, unrelated.
I have to explain that Bioware is not the beacon of knowledge as some fans will led you to believe. As a neutral party, i am just observing every possible justification for this disaster. Some defenses i found, consisted in only liking the series because at LEAST it will open the path foward for more games like it by introducing the Save Import Concept to the world of gaming. Because, since this is an interactive medium, the protagonist/audience agency should be reflected upon the plot.
I can sort off see the argument being made, but it isnt anything new or worth preserving for the future. The series didnt do anything meaningful with it, so its just a marketing gimminck.
Good point, but there is a problem: Why would Bioware lie to begin with?
They 'lie' for exactly the reasons I previously listed, and nothing you say here actually addresses those. It's not a lie to claim that they are planning a trilogy, it just so happens that while planning one the future of it is still up in the air and depends on the success of early installments. Oh, but they have such loyal fans and could definitely have counted on them to support the endeavor? Well look what BioWare fans are doing right now. Imagine if the ending of the first game had proven even half as divisive. Oh, but they already have a solid reputation? Look how tainted that reputation seems to be right now. Reputations are always in flux, and largely depend on the popularity of your last project. That's how the business works. It's not about people willfully lying to you because they don't trust you (Well, sometimes it is, too. DRM and all). It's that fans actually are a fickle bunch.
If popularity depends on the last proyect AND the fan loyalty isnt really important (as you say), then how come that after 3 flops like ME2, DA2 and Old Republic (2 of them that you admited were objectively WORSE than ME3) people only started the outrage in ME3?? These kind of loyalty towards a developers is not something you take for granted. They tolerated the worst 2 and yet ME3 was the last drop on the glass of water?
Care to tell me what happened?
i am saying that they said that they would ONLY make the 3rd game to have a branching narrative feature because otherwise it would have been a nightmare to code, and yet that didnt happen either.
More simple then? They lied (once again) on the fact that the 3rd game would branch out with its storyline. For the sake of reference, i believe that it would have been like The Witcher 2, where a few actions on the first hours determine the rest of your end journey.
They say that only the 3rd game would have this feature because, if done since Mass Effect 1, it would be hard to do. People accepted this........until they noticed that ME3 had NONE of what they described.......again.
What is the excuse now? sure, they CANT plan the story far ahead, but they CANT make sure that the main gameplay component and drawn to the series (meaningful choices) work as they promised it would? Did they run out of money even with 2 successful (financially) games?
What is not to understand here?
All we have is the "select your favorite colour" endings followed by total galactic annihilation because of the Relays exploding (apparently the writers just forgot that solar systems are destroyed when a Relays are destroyed as shown on the Canon "Arrival DLC")
Because there couldn't possibly be two different ways for something as complex as this to break down? Next time my car does I'll have to remind the repair guy to check for the one thing that's always at fault. If conservation of energy worries you, I'm pretty sure the relay in Arrival didn't also fire a magical beam of energy across the galaxy. Consider this a vent for what would otherwise have gone out in an explosion if you will.
2 things:
1) The Catalyst said: "Releasing the energy of The Crusible WILL end the cycle, but it will also destroy the Mass Relays" At 4:56
No exposition on HOW the destruction of the Relays is different to the one in the Arrival. This dialog is also in the EC, meaning that, from a character perspective, Shepard STILL doesnt get a proper answer if destroying the Relays by using the Crusible will kill everyone like he saw before. Nice fixing right there.
2)Notice how the relays start having little explotions before releasing the energy and they start to breakdown after it. Only the Control (blue) ending cuts the image before seeing the bigger explotions on the relay.
Again, we had NO proper exposition from that last-minute-twist Catalyst Boy about the Relay destruction. Since fans assume that consistency is what ANY writer would strive for, they concluded (with lack of evidence of the contrary) that the Relay just exploded like in Arrival.
We cant just assume or headcannon the best sceneario when there are so many variables presented that prevent such conclusion from happening. And if i am filling the holes for the writer that didnt care to do themselves, why i am not getting paid for it?
I assume the fact that you don't list DA 1 as one of the terrible, terrible insults produced by BioWare means you consider it at least decent, far above the likes of ME3 or ME2? Well according to your own source only 36% of players finished that, compared to the 42% of ME3 and 56% of ME2. Not sure how you believe this 'proves' anything, but it would be helpful to at least check if things you link actually, really back you up on something.
When you cant even START the dammed thing in the first place, how can you finish it?
Reminds me on how Spain claims that it has less crime rates than before, but the catch is that now you must PAY the police before making a report on a crime. Of course there are less crimes, because there is no enough money to report them in the fist place! whopy doo!
Also, we are talking about the story and the gameplay related to it (as in, making choices with the dialog wheel and such) As far as i know, DA:O didnt have a bad story, or did it?
Considering their ultimate decision to change it and "We must always strive to do better" lingo, not exactly fair to claim they wanted to leave the damn thing as it was no matter what.
You are aware they didnt change the very thing that made the ending so broken, right? Also, its EXTENDING what we already have and at least they DID change the fact that the Relay explode to just breaking down (However, the low EMS scores still give you the Relay explotions like the Pre-Extended Cut)
So lets think about it for a second. According to Casey Hudson in "The Final Hours" they say that videogames can "leave a message without making any statement" even if they said earlier that they wanted to keep a high level to leave everyone guessing. But noneless, apparently there is a statement on the ending, or specifically, the part with the Godchild/The Catalyst, that will explain why has change much compared to the rest of the ending, everything that needed to be said was already there.
Alright..............and what statement would that be? so far, no official explanation was made about what was the "vision" with the Catalyst, not even in the Con Panels. They send the lesser writters to deal with the fans, even when Casey and Walter said that they ACTUALLY want to talk with the fans.
So, its there ANY integrity here that its worth defending? i would like to know.
And seriously? just NOW they are trying to do their best with "We must always strive to do better"? Its a bit to late to start worring again about the ending. The other DLC didnt do much to paint them as competent anymore, and still treat those acomplishments with just a simple EMS score that will never be mentioned again. Case in point, the Leviathans, a menace that its clearly worse than the Reapers, its just forgotten by the end prologue.
That "organics vs. synthetics" actually happens to be the core thread of only one subplot (and also EDI's, to a degree) does still not so much mean that the series failed to back its ending as the ending failed to identify what the series is actually about (overcoming petty grudges, working together against a common foe, yadda yadda).
Yes, its true. That theme was made the focus of the ending without apparent reason and neglected everything else. Anyone who followed the of plot holes on the ending will eventually know that.
Nope, not my problem. It is the ideal illustration of your perspective, and that's what I take issue with. Not that you chose to phrase it accurately, but the fact that you actually think the series and other games in BioWare's recent career are this staggeringly, unequivocally, inconceivably terrible. Which is a rather ludicrous perspective.
Ah, is that all? then show some proof that the writting of those recent works (even the external novels like Deception, if you feel like it) is set to the standards procedures of a working belivable plot. So this way, you can demostrate that things if people are complaining because they dont like it because.....because. Or its baddly written, and therefore, they dont like it.
So far, i got all this to conclude that the series went of the rails:
smudboy: (now with EC complains)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW2ZxnkUHCY
Archengeia: there are 5 more videos of 2 hours each
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnMkTx3ATkQ END
All those focuse on the endings (Archengeia and smudboy have more to say towards the rest of the series as a whole, but i will give you the links in the quote where you asked for them)
It also happens to be Ebert's job, and that of professional critics in general, to editorialize on things they don't like. In personal life, well if you come across something you don't like, helpful to think about why that is. If somebody who's work you generally enjoy makes something you dislike, possibly helpful to tell them why you dislike it and perhaps justified to get a little mad. But after a company has, as you argue, proven themselves bad through repeated insult, to then continue to seek out their material so you can argue about it and to fail to accept their current decline and to instead yell and whine and bang your fists on the ground like you are now going to turn things around, that's obsessive. The idea that you are going to right a wrong in the world by speaking out against this evil and putting BioWare in their rightly place by making sure nobody else dare enjoy what you hate so much, that's obsessive.
If i dont push the issue, then how you expect me to find out why is it good for others? i got everything from the side that claims that the series is broken and yet so little from the other side of the debate.
I cant be obsessive for asking a simple question, it will be like being called obssesive for asking "what hour is it?" and people refuse to answer it......for some reason. Its nothing out of this world, is it? but at every turn, i end up finding even MORE evidence suggesting the bad quality of the series.
B: "That means that its thematically repulsive to you know, isnt it?"
Yes, but at what cost? it removes what made him a superhero in the first place. Now he is just a stranger with superpowers and no morals (he will just break them without sweat).
With the proper information at hand, one CAN notice something wrong on a story. I hope that it was painfully clear already. Mass Effect is the gift that keeps on giving, there is just TOO MUCH to work here. Thankfully i only need a few links for people that did the job for me on the site "AWTR - All Were Thematically Revolting"
1) It's solely about the ending, which I happily admit is terrible
2) Still worthwhile if the sources you use are actually helpful, because you might have noticed this part, said of every part of Mass Effect except the ending: "every installment of Mass Effect is conventionally structured, adheres to genre standards, and was very well-written within the confines of standard narrative conventions"
Remember when i said in that "spoiler" part that i will give you the links? here they are:
www.youtube.com/user/smudboy/videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/SpoilerWarningShow/videos?query=mass+effect+3
You can also find the rest of the Mass Effect series in those channels.
Enjoy.
Honestly, failed to detect the sarcasm there? In a sentence where I use the words "objectively worse"? Figured I was just handing you munition?
As their trackrecord of still writing characters that I and a great many people enjoy? Not exactly evidence, but that's because we are still talking about matters of taste. Which are not objective. I think that you really managed to misread that prior sentence speaks to your perspective there.
Characters are SUPPOSED to make the plot with their actions, instead you just stumble around them and solve their daddy issues during ME2 before the suicide mission (Which, by the way, its also contrived instead of just using the most logical and simple approach possible)
Oh and it is hardly a conspiracy when the "game journalists" of IGN:
1)Gave high scores to Mass effect 3 also had TONS of adverticements to the game just NEXT to the very reviews that were supposed objective and unbiased.
Because high-profile games being somewhat decent while also shelling out lots of advertising money is suuuuch a coincidence. Reviews are opinion pieces written by a single author. They are by their very nature personal, subjective and, yes, biased. Never ever ever ever ever ever were they supposed to be objective, because that simply cannot be achieved. Reviews are opinions. Curious thought, I know.
You sure about that? it would be nice to see IGN have a negative thing to say BEFORE Mass Effect 3 launch or even before the ending (i DO know that they bashed the EC thought but they already got pay by then)
And if opinions are harmless, then why is it such a serious bussiness for the heads up??
IGN has never been a particularly stellar outlet, and games journalism on the whole could have covered the fan outrage better, since after all, people did have something to be mad about. But you know what? They and everybody else talking about Gamer Entitlement also had a point, because yes, that's a thing.
Yes, there are better people than IGN covering the ordeal, and they still fail to do the research. When a nobody on the internet can call out a person like Movie Bob on his research (and make a show out of it), you know there is nowhere to look upon.
Quite frankly, I hate the ending. What I also hate is the sheer amount of people who were crying for it to be changed, because BioWare owed them something, because they deserved better. BioWare doesn't owe us anything. They should have changed the ending and they did (a bit), but they never had to change anything. Valid option to just leave it as is and suffer the consequences.
I really love how you begin with "it's no conspiracy" and then dive right in the conspiracy territory. Shady backdoor deals, the whole bit.
With 4 games being lackbuster AFTER being bought by EA (not the first RPG series that EA fucks over. See Ultima IX), it seems that people expected better from the profesionals. BW doesnt own us anything but they are not entitled to our money, specially if they make a poor job.
Still, that its an old argument at this point, isnt it? so lets see something new to the table:
First, there were those interviews before ME1 that claimed that "There is no Canon". That refers to the little details of course, not the BIG changes like Saren attacking the Citadel and more. Still, if such thing like having the Catalyst "winning" the argument in favor of using the Crusible (in the original ending) is canon, then they made a poor attempt and making it belivable.
So here is another thing:
That is from the presentation "Get Your Game Out Of My Movie" by Lead Cinematic Designer Armando Troisi. And that image up there is "The Agreement". He had this to say:
"The agreement is the covenant the designer makes with the player. It is a set of rules that governs choice and expectation. It is the glue that binds the player to the role playing experience and allows for them to access the avatar much like a first person storytelling experience, while still avoiding the tropes and conventions the principle demands[...]
The story belongs to the player, not the writer. The writer builds the sandbox but we leave it up to the player to figure out how they want to experience their own fun. This is both the boon and the bane of BioWare interactive storytelling, because it means that there is room for absurdity in the narrative with no guarantee each player will have an optimum story experience.
An example of this is when you?re about to go on a critical, universe-saving mission at the end of the game ? and then you decide to go to the Citadel and buy some fish for your tank. A film writer would go nuts as this removes all the tension and drama from the situation. But that?s part of the agreement we make with the player and we need to stand by that choice.
On ME2 we did a lot of things to make the game unique to the player through level design, story design and mission structure. But one feature stood out amongst all the others in our attempt to personalize the story to each player?.
One of the major features of ME2 was the ability to import your character from ME1. The whole purpose of this feature was to make your ME experience personal. It?s your story. We and the fans wanted choice to matter and consequence be meaningful, so having choice matter between titles met that expectation and was a successful feature."
We can at least conclude that from 1 to 2, Mass Effect was shared between the players and the writers. So how do you think that people will react if such agreement is broken? we already know that.
Question is: Was this ALSO a marketing gimminck all along? given how they cared about the little details but not the overarching plot, it seems that any meaningful choice was just an illusion.
If popularity depends on the last proyect AND the fan loyalty isnt really important (as you say), then how come that after 3 flops like ME2, DA2 and Old Republic (2 of them that you admited were objectively WORSE than ME3) people only started the outrage in ME3?? These kind of loyalty towards a developers is not something you take for granted. They tolerated the worst 2 and yet ME3 was the last drop on the glass of water?
Sure, and hear me out, because I know it sounds crahazy. Maybe, just maybe, and despite all the anecdotal 'evidence' you have, not everybody agrees with you that the three games are terrible start to finish. I hear that maybe there's a few people out there who enjoy them a little bit, for whom the ending is not the final straw but in fact the only major issue? Interesting idea to bend there being no outrage to your argument. Certainly that proves how fed up fans really were at the time. Man, they must have been fuming.
I'll also have to remind you that I of course never admitted to ME2, DA2, The Old Republic or anything being "objectively worse". I find it a little ridiculous that you assume that's a real thing people do, grade games from objectively good to objectively bad.
Mass Effect 1 is not included in the bunch, it's just the rest of the series that make it pointless and a waste of time, rather than baddly written.
But anyway, you say that people only had issue with the ending alone and not the rest of the series? in this case it seems that we BOTH have anectodal "evidence", isnt it? after all, i can ALSO say that people disliked the recent "masterpieces" of BW but it wasnt until the ending that they decided to talk some truth out of their mouths.
Since apparently i cant prove that, we may as well devolve into conspiracy theory. Are you familiar with Joseph Goebbels?: "The principle and which is quite true in itself and that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily." In short: "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."
I am willing to bet that the reason that people believe that "There is no way to objectively measure anything as good or bad. Therefore, everything is subjective" is because they have been lied to so many times that they actually believe it. Almost every argument about how we can measure something objectively ends up nowhere because no one continues it, and most of the people who like the ending just do it because they are tired of everything and chose the side with less pressure and resistance.
I dont know about you, but i am reminded of 1984. Here is a fragment on Tv Tropes: "The authorities there do not even try to suppress the message of Emmanuel Goldstein, a strawman politician invented by the ruling party in order to draw out dissidents. Orwell uses Goldstein in order to set out his own views of totalitarian societies. The Authorities instead attempt to condition the population into being unable to comprehend an objective reality."
But you know, its just all hypothesis and crap. Nothing to worry about. Its not like we have been constantly hammered down all the time with us being "entitled" and "we cant critice art" all the time without ever getting a proper answer as for why we can't, right?
Right.
They lied (once again) on the fact that the 3rd game would branch out with its storyline. For the sake of reference, i believe that it would have been like The Witcher 2, where a few actions on the first hours determine the rest of your end journey.
And because you weren't happy with the amount of branching there actually is, let's pretend there's none at all and make this about how they lied. Filthy liars.
I cant be happy because i dont know what that is, did you forget already? i am a neutral here. Also, all missions on ME3 have no branching, fucking up on the Genophage issue doesnt affect the rest of the game or the ending whatsoever. It just affect your EMS score.
So really, there is NO branching at all. You to yet to prove otherwise thought, but i believe that the videos on ME3 will keep you bussy for a while.
1) The Catalyst said: "Releasing the energy of The Crusible WILL end the cycle, but it will also destroy the Mass Relays
Oh, oh, forgive me. Try the absolutely same argument then, only with the word "destroy" instead of "break down". Destroy is still not exactly a detailed or precise technical term. There are many ways you could destroy the car I previously brought up. Run it into something else, whack it with hammers for a while, get into some sort of natural desaster, light it on fire. Some of these ways are more likely than others to cause explosions.
This whole thing, it's an annoying inconsistency, not necessarily a plot hole or them forgetting what they established as canon. Unless you desperately try to force the square peg through the round hole with by arguing that explosion equals explosion no matter what.
Again, if you were Shepard and you were alone with this ghost child out of your nightmares that somehow is the leader of the Reapers, wouldnt YOU want more information about The Crusible? after all, no one in THIS cycle knew what it does and all you have now is the untrustworthy words of your worst enemy right next to you. Would this be a simple annoyance?
Why would a logical an intelligent AI wouldnt be capable of using simple terms for the meatbag in front of him? I know he is the enemy but if he claims that its being forced to help Shep then at least have the decensy of telling the truth.
SO. MUCH. DISCUSSION.
Okay, I'm going to go with Mass Effect because although more limited the decisions you make in those games feel more profound and philosophical because it's part of an actual narrative with fates hanging in the balance. Save the Council or let them die, preserve the Collector base for research or destroy it, cure the genophage or deceive the Krogan. Even the end was a choice that would decide the future of the galaxy.
In Minecraft I'm pretty much just deciding whether I should dig my castle a moat.
I like creating everything and ME3's ending managed to cheapen the entire series as a whole. (Besides everyone is sick of hearing about the bloody thing).
Mnnn... the thread is empty. Time to spice it up with some fake controver-I MEAN- discusing the serious bussiness that is ME3 and blah blah.
DeadpanLunatic said:
No, which is exactly why I brought up the question of why so few people finished it, unless of course absolutely everyone suffered from DRM failure. And if they did, it still serves to show how little your "percentage of players who finished" experiment actually tells us about quality. You might feel smug for pointing that little thing out, but keep in mind you are still breaking your own example.
Anyone BUT the people who had the PC version. Still, even the article i posted doesnt have an idea if it was the ending itself that put people off before finishing. However, it is said that first impresions matter.........and the intro was also written by the people who made the ending.
It shows. And that is just the technical aspect (you think they would have it fixed by now)
And keep in mind that i can at least understand why people wouldnt like Dragon Age Origins. It uses the same mechanics of Baldur's Gate (Real Time with Pause) a style of gameplay that not many people like. DA:O by itself, its emulating a style of gameplay that many people considered dead or forgotten by the industry except for a small niche. Not really a big numbers to make lots of profit but just enough to keep making that kind of game.
But Mass Effect was streamlined into what developers think it would sell better (Gears Of War with Light RPG elements), and that % of people finishing the game is still not that high compared to DA:O. So what happened there? because, again, i dont see people complaining about the story of DA:O but i DO see people complaining about BOTH gameplay and story on ME3.
Not even the hype and the streamlined gameplay couldnt save it.
And yet, fixed or not, their willingness to change the ending in any way shows that they don't subscribe to the artistic integrity nonsense you try to pin on them. It's kind of funny how every single one of your arguments slowly turns into "But the ending still sucks!". Yes, it does. Doesn't change a single thing about the various points we've been arguing before. You are retreating.
Probably not, that's why they didn't leave it the way it was. You're not very interested in talking about the things that actually happened, are you?
Yes, they dont believe in their own integrity.........and they dont really have to. All they have to do is pretend they do for everyone to go batshit insane. Its brilliant really. By saying that, they divide the fanbase so that they waste time arguing if they are actually destroying art with their justifiable bitching (as the journalist keep telling them).
You may say that people would have stopped after BW gave up his "vision", but the seed of doubt is already there. The gamers would think: "What if i am really entitled as everyone keep saying? what if there was a message or a commentary that BW wanted to tell but i didnt see it because i am flawed and not a profesional authority on writting?" so on and so fort. That is a nice way to erode a person self confidence, isnt it? keep telling them that "they dont get it" until they feel terrible for their supposed lack of knowledge.
Now THAT is a nice submise customer right there! one that buys anything you throw at it without ever questioning it. Thankfully, its not that developers have employed this batshit insane thing before........or did they?:
The original model of the PSP had buttons too close to the screen, so the Einsteins at Sony moved over the switch for the square button, without moving the location of the button itself. Thus every PSP had an unresponsive square button that would also often stick. Note that the square button is the second-most important face button on the controller, right before X; in other words, it's used constantly during the action in most games. Sony president Ken Kutaragi confirmed that this was intentional.
Ken Kutaragi: "I believe we made the most beautiful thing in the world. Nobody would criticize a renowned architect's blueprint that the position of a gate is wrong. It's the same as that."
Replace "renowned architect" with "renowned writers" and whoila.
Actually, no. I got an interesting idea, make your own damn points. Because just by looking at the titles of those and noticing some I already know, I can tell that at least half of your material again only concerns the ending, which if you'd please like to make a note of this because it keeps coming up, you no longer have to prove is bad. I agreed. Only this doesn't show that everything else is bad too.
Remember these words?: "So far, i got all this to conclude that the series went off the rails"
The context of my reply to that quote of yours implies that, to show that the series is broken, i had to show everything i got up to this point. To demostrate that, unlike you who has yet to offer anything in the defense of the series (After 3 replies with nothing), i had done my research.
--13 ending (and 1 on ME3 in general)--
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=15395 (it talks both of the ending AND the 3rd game)
--2 on the nature of plot holes--
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17692
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17745
--4 on ME2 plot--
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=11646
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=7004
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=7006
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=7007
--1 on Gamer Entilement (and what brought me on ME3 in the first place)--
http://awtr.ca/long:mass-effect-3-and-the-art-of-criticism-or-why-colin-mor
And 4 videos
Sure, there are more articles about the ending but then again that is just 13 articles talking about the last minutes of a game, that is easy to write. But try to write about the WHOLE series now........that would take even more time to summarize now, isnt it? that why there are a FEW articles and videos that do that. So it doesnt matter how many are about the ending because what matters (if you had paid any attention) are the ones that refer to the series, and are more dense with information.
For example, by placing the "Bookend of Destruction Part 5" of smudboy there, you would have noticed that it says "part 5" which implies that there is more...........which means that you are going to look into the channel.......which means that you are going to find ALL the videos that talk about the series and its plotholes....which was EXACTLY what you wanted and yet you still yell at me like if i had done anything wrong. I guess it was too subtle for you to notice.
But i guess that its better to say "half of these are about the ending" rather than ACTUALLY taking a look into them, doesnt it?
Between your excessive quoting in the general direction of issues (seeing how well that worked out with previous articles) and your willingness to hammer in the same argument without bothering to ever think about what I said (later on, I will get to make the same point for the third time in a row because you still failed to address it), I get the impression you are shooting for victory by submission here. You know, based on the idea that if you use a whole lot of words and quote a whole lot of things, it's going to look like work to continue responding and I will cave. A harsh thing to suggest, but I don't know how else to label your attempts at maybe making points.
We are in Page 2 of this thread (possible 3 if this very post pushes it a bit more) this cant be hammering submission when other threads went to 14 pages with my mere presence. You cant be this tired already, and if you are then waste time answering me and not look at the videos about the WHOLE series? isnt that what you wanted and i ALREADY gave you before.......again??
If i dont push the issue, then how you expect me to find out why is it good for others? i got everything from the side that claims that the series is broken and yet so little from the other side of the debate.
Hah, I wonder why that might be. Do you know what confirmation bias is? The reason you don't 'get' anything from this side is because you are utterly unwilling to accept what you hear. If I say "I like x" you immediately snap "x is terrible, it has no genuine consequences".
Still confirmation bias. Yes, bias. The thing you loathe so in reviews. People aren't unwilling to answer, you are unwilling to listen.
"x is terrible AND it has no genuine consequences".
Done.
I will adress the fact that i dont find consequenses of meaning on ME on the quotes below.
In the meantime, there is this:
http://writersdisease.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-mass-effect-3-ending-character-or.html?showComment=1353796309692#c8911009002833989190
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12965302
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12883515
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12330623/1
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12153660/1
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12975245
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13006636
http://osirislord.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/in-defense-of-bioware/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/06/in-defense-of-bioware/
http://galacticpillow.com/2012/04/02/editorial-the-reapers-advocate-a-different-take-on-the-mass-effect-3-ending/#comment-1770 (i like this one. It actually would be a nice thing to have if the writers of ME3 actually took the time to put that shit on the narrative itself, rather than the "you have to know this from the real world and read this Sci Fi to blah blah")
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/why-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3-was-satifying-and-worthy-of-the-series-mass
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2012/03/14/mass-effect-3-ending-spoiler-warning
And of course:
http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-words-on-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3/
http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/17/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-more-words-on-the-column-about-the-ending-of-mas/
http://badassdigest.com/2012/10/30/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-plot-holes-and-movie-logic/
Most of them rely on the "You are entitled" or "you dont get it" and head cannon. The ones with head cannon make up the narrative that the writers plain forgot to do themselves, and sadly that is a sign of bad writting when you have to either use things from other works or real world science to justify something that SHOULD have been explained in the narrative itself. They are nice to read but just as pointless as the Indoctrination Hypothesis.
And before you ask, yes, those are about the ending. I have yet to find a defense for the SERIES as a whole....maybe this guy named Squee19 could help while he dabates with Smudboy?
If that's the story you are currently imagining, sure, but you that's not already there in what little context you give. It might well be a deal intended for ultimate good, an "end justifies the means" thing that brings him more in line with more morally questionable superheroes. "Giving up" the thing that defines you, at least for a while, can help explore exactly what that thing is.
Maybe this article could help you ilustrate what i mean. It is about Metroid Other M character assasination of Samus Aran, and uses a similar example to mine but with Batman and Samus. Start reading after "Why Do You Like This Scene?"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/lb_i.php?lb_id=13373815860B43920100&i_id=13378783280I83340200&p=8
I still don't see how you insisting that I need to watch several hours worth of videos before we go on arguing shows anything except that you are unable to summarize them.
You waste time writting a reply for me without even caring for giving a misserable link in favor of ME. Ergo, you have time to waste for a bunch of videos that do the job much better for me.
People didnt sumarize it for me, and if i didnt understand i could ask the comments on the video. What is stopping you from doing just that?
Fair mistake. But then again, how i am supposed to detect sarcasm in TEXT?
Come to think of it, how can you even detect anger here? i dont understand.
Because just in order to think I was making that point with a straight face, you had to assume that in the middle of a string of counterarguments, I just kind of broke stride and gave you one for free. As for anger, well there's the growing use of caps, furious and foul language and also that you seem to be at a loss for words more often now.
All in all, do you even know how communication works? Actual question.
The Caps mean ange....ooooooh i see now, "Internet Lore" (sarcastic quotes). So, if you ACTUALLY believe that, as in, you believe that "ALL CAPS = YELLING!!" then you also believe that "There are no women on the Internet" right? Of course not. You dont have to generalize like that and i shouldnt be bothered to some non existent etiquete that a bunch of people on the Internet made, and i shouldnt be bothered in making (for example) my voice sound less British for the Americans that feel annoyed by it. There is no reason for it.
My CAPS is for emphasis and so is the healthy ammount swearing. Is simpler and faster than using the [.brackets.] for the BOLD font. Having you notice the CAPS is the same to me as a developer making sure that important objects are highlighted for you convenience, and i dont see you complaining about it as a way for the developers to threat you like a child or SCREAMING where the plot relevant items are.
Unless i use them in a egregious way (like Frank Miller, a "profesional" writer) i dont see why it should be a problem.
Characters are SUPPOSED to make the plot with their actions, instead you just stumble around them and solve their daddy issues during ME2 before the suicide mission (Which, by the way, its also contrived instead of just using the most logical and simple approach possible)
Well I'm glad that's settled and we now know the one way to use characters in any work of fiction (careful, sarcasm). Even if they don't drive the plot, that says nothing of the quality of writing in their little "daddy issues". If you despise them merely because they have such sidequests, don't tell me again that you've basically given them every chance to woo you.
Characters MAKING the plot is just being consistent with what ME1 presented. That game did the Char>Plot and not the other way around, so why shift gears in the presentation in favor of nice characters that have nothing to do with the plot other than the contrivence of the Suicide Mission?
Tom Bombaldi In Lord Of The Rings at least was a small part of the narrative that didnt affect much, so the writer could tell that story without sacrificing anything at all.
It would be nice to see IGN hold a critical thought any time, about any game, but their low standards actually work in their favor here. They give out a lot of glowing review scores, so unless you want to suggest that every single major developer gives them bags of cash come review time, Mass Effect is just one highly praised game in a cavalcade of highly praised games. But I know, it's so much more interesting to think something super special secret has been going on. IGN fails to deliver on critical reporting? Well stop the fucking presses.
Given how better it is for publishers to spend money on marketing and even Bootbabes (rather than use that money on the actual game) to bring more idiots in before they can say that the game suck by word of mouth, i would say "why the fuck not? Why fix what isnt broken?"
Point of interest starts at 17:50 to 23:56.
I'm curious, do you mean to prove games journalism is out to get you? Or what else exactly? That they're fallible?
Fallible? under what excuse? Movie Bob makes the GameOverthinker on his spare time, he had plenty after the ME3 ending controversy so he can look at his material before releasing it, and all this just to resort to strawmen and poorly done research? Why is this guy a journalist again?
With 4 games being lackbuster AFTER being bought by EA
And you STILL cant provide reasons to why they ARENT.
First, there were those interviews before ME1 that claimed that "There is no Canon". That refers to the little details of course, not the BIG changes like Saren attacking the Citadel and more. Still, if such thing like having the Catalyst "winning" the argument in favor of using the Crusible (in the original ending) is canon, then they made a poor attempt and making it belivable.
It also applies to the rest of the series. As in, why is Shepard railroaded into working for Cerberus? Why cant he demostrate the existance of the Reapers to The Council by showing the Derelict Reaper? Would that have been a problem for the writers to ACTUALLY give that option? There is no canon after all, so they dont have to lament the destruction of their brilliant shakespearean plots.
Not a question I ever asked, but hey, I guess that's another of these "just in case" points. Curiously, the precise things he describes and uses for examples are also present in Mass Effect 3. Bringing things back down to the common starting point of house arrest was less than ideal, but it still entertains your story, based on previous decisions (and of course you still have the option of buying fish ). I know, "You saved them, so they're still alive" might not be a big deviation. Don't regale me again with your tales of how this literally isn't a variable.
So it is STILL my story even when it makes the events of Arrival meaningless (along with ME2)? Arrival is canon apparently, but if you didnt play it then Hackett sends a team of marines to Arrival. So if i didnt murder an entire star system....then why i am in prision again? wasting that precious time i obtained by delaying the Reapers by doing nothing and not even giving orders to the squadmates for even gather as much people as they can while on jail?
Aaah retcons and inconsistencies, at least something is consistent here.
Question is: Was this ALSO a marketing gimminck all along? given how they cared about the little details but not the overarching plot, it seems that any meaningful choice was just an illusion.
Because little equals meaningless. I find it strange that you agree to picking the The Walking Dead as a replacements when many of its strengths are the exacts same. You end up in the same spot no matter what you do, and your fate is basically set. What matters is how you lived, not that your final decision affects absolutely everything ever.
I choosed The Walking Dead because you gave me that option, remember? also, you said that you wanted BOTH extremes examples of games. One for pure gameplay (Minecraft / Dwarf Fortress) and one for pure narrative (The Walking Dead), so of course TWD is a better example for that niche you want to fill. Kinda weird that you wanted Mass Effect as an equivalent for TWD since Mass Effect is an hybrid of both extremes.
If it wasnt for that i would have chosen Planescape Torment (hybrid), or even the Westwood Studios adaptation of Blade Runner into a point and click adventure that REALLY does have a branching narrative (pure narrative).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_%281997_video_game%29
As for TWD, i dont remember it being sold as a branching narrative, only that it remembers what you did before.
What is worth keeping in mind, still, is the issue of confirmation bias. As a rule of thumb, happy, content gamers don't tend to write long-winded posts about their satisfaction. Rage and bile, those drive people to say and do strange things. And then they see all the other people doing and saying strange things. And because that's all they see, they think that's all there is. Worth remembering that the people yelling the loudest don't necessarily represent the majority.
U sure that people DONT post long crap about their satisfaction and how everyone is a hater?
http://osirislord.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/in-defense-of-bioware/
Also, just because they rage and spew bile out of their mouth doesnt make them wrong by default. Otherwise, Harlan Ellision would have NEVER be able to win ANY argument on his life:
With that filthy mouth (and a healthy dose for hatred for humanity), he won Eight and a half Hugo Awards, three Nebula Awards (plus a lifetime achievement award), five Bram Stoker Awards (including a lifetime achievement award), two Edgar Awards, and four Writers Guild of America Awards for Most Outstanding Teleplay ? more awards than almost any other living writer.
I am willing to bet that the reason that people believe that "There is no way to objectively measure anything as good or bad. Therefore, everything is subjective" is because they have been lied to so many times that they actually believe it.
Colin Moriarty from IGN says "Hi" http://awtr.ca/long:everyone-shut-up-so-i-can-hear-myself-decide-what-art-i
He still got his job by the way.
Also, all missions on ME3 have no branching, fucking up on the Genophage issue doesnt affect the rest of the game or the ending whatsoever. It just affect your EMS score.
I had to mention the ending because its related. I had to mention it along the other parts of the game that had no branching. I dont see why you are so upset about this, for me being clear and all.
So really, there is NO branching at all. You to yet to prove otherwise thought, but i believe that the videos on ME3 will keep you bussy for a while.
Sure, if we play by your silly rules. Here, proof, which you so crave.
-If Shepard did not reveal the sabotage while in the convoy to the Shroud, Mordin will realize something is wrong. Either Shepard tells Mordin about the Dalatrass's deal or Mordin will correctly surmise it. Unless stopped by persuade options in conversation or by force, Mordin will ascend the tower to repair the STG sabotage, successfully releasing the genophage cure, but dying in the process.
-If Shepard warned of the Dalatrass's deal in the convoy, Mordin carries through the counter-sabotage and deploys the cure, sacrificing his life in the process. You may use a Paragon interrupt just before Mordin steps into the elevator to get some morality points, but it won't change Mordin's fate.
-If Shepard tries to make Mordin abandon the mission while Wrex and/or Eve are alive, Mordin will refuse to listen. Shepard is offered a Renegade interrupt to gun him down. If Shepard does not take it Mordin will cure the Genophage.
-If Shepard has not revealed the sabotage and tries to make Mordin abandon the mission while Wrex and Eve are both dead, persuade options can be used on Mordin to convince him that it is for the best if the Shroud remain sabotaged and the krogans fooled into believing the genophage cured. This is the only scenario where Mordin lives. Both Mordin and Wiks agree to fake their own deaths, but Mordin becomes a War Asset at the Crucible project, whereas Wiks, according to an e-mail he sends you after the mission, instead seeks out a quiet colony world where he will work as a farmer and take his secret to the grave.
Aftermath
-Whether or not you actually cured the genophage, the krogan provide the the Urdnot Leader, Krogan Clans, and Clan Urdnot. You will also earn Krogan Mercenaries if Wrex is leader. However, they may be diminished in strength if Eve died or Wreav is leader. Furthermore, if you did not cure the genophage, Wrex will eventually find out, and confront you during Priority: The Citadel III, leading to his death and a diminishing of the krogan's military strength. If Wreav is the Urdnot leader, he never discovers the deception.
Oh, but I know, those deviations aren't big enough. Your decisions don't affect the ending. So really, those differences don't even exist, right?
Would you finally admit that the issue is not that Mass Effect 3 literally doesn't have branching, narrative deviation but only that you're not happy with the amount there is? You can't expect me to take you seriously if you go on yelling how "There is no choice at all!". This is factually wrong (yes, one of the few areas with actual facts, not spicy opinions).
Somehow, it seems that you are kinda lost, here let me help you. The decisions dont affect the ending AND the rest of the game. What happened in Tuchanka STAYS in Tuchanka, you may get mails on that event and EMS score, and in the End Game (London) you see if there are a few or lots of krogan doing nothing. And that is all.
Why is this not a branching storyline, like The Witcher 2, Black Isle Studios' Fallout, Sacrifice or even Westwood Blade Runner? because Mass Effect developers dont think it is. Going back to the Armando Troisi presentation:
"One of the lessons we?ve learned over the years is not to branch your narrative too early because it becomes exponentially more expensive the longer you need to support it"
It seems that what they had on ME2 wasnt what they considered a "branching narrative" and neither the small things on ME1 itself, that was supposed to be reserved for the 3rd game. But as we all see now, it just the same thing presented as the other 2 games, who by the way are not seen as "branching narratives" acording to these profesionals. Just to be clear.
If you think that Mass Effect has a branching narrative just because it remembers the little things you did before (and only that), then i suppose that you believe that Hotline Miami has a branching narrative. After all, it "remembers" if you picked up the hidden letters that enable the hidden ending or the weapons you unlock to use in previous missions. Or maybe SNK vs. Capcom: SVC Chaos has a branching narrative because it remembers how well you did before giving you an ending.
See how ridiculous that is? Older games like Fallout 1 did what Mass Effect and even Deus Ex 1 are know for, and yet those are the ones that "branch out"?
That is more than a simple annoyance. It also isn't what we've been talking about. You don't just get to dodge and talk about something else if you have nothing more to say. Also, once more about the ending huh?
If you hadnt say anything about it, i wouldnt be compeled to respond to it to clarify it. Is that so hard to understand or you just want to invent the argument that "you only talk about the ending" in this discussion?
Ah, is that all? then show some proof that the writting of those recent works (even the external novels like Deception, if you feel like it) is set to the standards procedures of a working belivable plot. So this way, you can demostrate that things if people are complaining because they dont like it because.....because. Or its baddly written, and therefore, they dont like it.
You didnt even make the effort to answer that properly. I guess grammar is more important that a simple request of proof.
Did that sound like an insult?? maybe you should use that for the next post to demotrate to the non existent audience of this thread that i am biased or something
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
