One Last look at Mass Effect 3.

[Uszi]

I can't get enough of this dirty subject.
Everybody needs to realize that there is a silent percentage (majority minority whatever) of people out there that thought the game was stupid, but never actually registered on a board to complain. I only have one RPG playing friend IRL and a few times at work we've discussed the stupidity of ME3's ending. He's not foaming at the mouth over it, but he also didn't purchase any DLC and isn't planning on future Bioware purchases (I just forced him to borrow DA:OA and he didn't seem excited). He's married with a real life and I'm a single, game playing douche bag, so while he's busy picking out curtains and having dinner with in-laws I'm on message boards bitching and moaning about shit that doesn't matter one iota IRL. So ladies, this obsessive psychotic is available, and if I'm this passionate about shitty writing in a video game you can just imagine my attention to detail when picking out presents.

And there's also a segment of fans, and I know one personally, "IRL", who refuse to engage in any sort of discussion about this. I'm talking about someone like me (and maybe you) who was a full on Mass Effect nut, who was totally invested, but who hasn't been back since April, hasn't bought any DLC, etc. The difference is this person still thinks the ending was fantastic because they "didn't want a happy ending," but refuse to acknowledge the flaws in the ending or make an explanation for why this ending is still "good" despite the laundry list of faults.

It strikes me as an attempt to assuage cognitive dissonance, and I'm reminded of him when I'm talking to people who are defending the endings. He wants to like ME3, so he won't admit its flaws to himself. Maybe I'm starting to sound unreasonable, but I think you need to at least be able to explain why the faults don't ruin the ending for you if you claim you like it. And, I'll accept, "I don't care about the faults," as a reasonably good explanation, but I don't even usually get this. Instead I get people ducking out of the conversation or a refusal to even acknowledge the faults exist.

Or, at least, this was back in April. Honestly, this thread is the first time I've revisited any of this in months. I swear.

Look, this entire series is full of unfired guns of Chekhov, many of which should have been fired. Apparently the Leviathan of Dis was addressed in a DLC, but it doesn't count if your Chekhov gun is fired after the main story arc is over, and this game didn't earn the right to have its DLC purchased anyway. There were a number of planets that had suitable plot devices in ME1&2, and every one was abandoned because ghost kid.

Can't agree more. Look, if the game shipped in a certain state, an extension that accounts for the that state after the fact doesn't change the original release. I'm still going to judge based on the original effort. John Steinbeck wrote "East of Eden" as his masterpiece, but it was received as a flawed novel. If Steinbeck sold the "East of Eden Companion Guide" which fixed a problem in the novel, the original novel is still subject to criticism on that point.

Remember, Drew Karpyshyn was only lead writer on Mass Effect 1. He was demoted for 2 and wasn't even present on 3. His ideas were abandoned because business. Often when someone is given an "artistic" project to finish they think they can outdo the originator, but if you look at his credits, Mac Walters really hasn't done much in the way of storytelling while Drew has not only written books omgz, but was the lead writer for KOTOR, which is generally considered just as good a work of fiction as Mass Effect 1.

The version of the Dark Energy story that I've heard, which I've heard was Kapyshyn's [http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/17086/mass-effect-writer-drew-karpyshyn-reveals-original-mass-effect-3-endings] I still am not huge on. The reapers trying to prevent the spread of Dark Energy, and somehow humans are the way to do it. So let them reap or try to fix the problem on our own, etc. I might be biased against this view because of my Biology background -- this idea of human "genetic" diversity is factually wrong. We aren't genetically diverse, at all. In fact there's a lot of evidence, genetically, that our species experienced a genetic bottle neck 70,000 years ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans] You share, on average, 99.5% - 99.9% of your alleles with completely unrelated individuals, including pygmies in the Amazon. So I'd have appreciated it if we could have kept this woo out of ME2 entirely.

Look, the Reapers should just be genocidal galactic imperialists that don't want to share the Galaxy with anyone else. But maybe also supremely lazy so they look for shit and new innovations to steal from Organic civilizations, which are developing along the lines they desire (Sovereign said this in ME1), or maybe they need indoctrinated slaves to do oil changes and tune ups every 50,000 years. The Reapers then time their invasion for that balancing point where it will be most profitable for them but before galactic civilization is able to really defend itself. I mean, they don't need a complex reason for being hostile. They're just Lovecraftian dicks.

Anyway this means, over the course of the games, that Shephard could delay the invasion (agin, via the events of ME1) to a point where conventional victory is possible via a united galaxy and you don't even need a MacGuffin to win. Or use the Dark Energy Chekhov's gun as your MacGuffin to beat the reapers via some sort of Klendagon super weapon. Or whatever. Or, shit, spend more than 3 seconds coming up with something that isn't as nonsensical or divorced from the rest of the story and universe as the ending as it existed in the final version of ME3.

If you take a step back and look at how bad the main stories in ME2&3 really were, then the monumental fuckup at the end doesn't seem as crazy. But isn't this just a symptom of the current gaming industry?

Let's go back to the unfired guns though, the quick and dirty was to fix this debacle is to go IT theory, THEN, after Shepard wakes up in front of the beam while the Reapers are still attacking, we go to the Crucible.

The Crucible - An omnidirectional FTL mass accelerator cannon that can use the Citadel's connection to the mass relays to target and track hostiles within the proximity of the relay network. With the Citadel's massive mass relay core capable of being used to create zero mass conduits across hundreds of thousands of light years, the nearly complete annihilation of the Reapers could occur within a matter of hours.

The codex specifically mentions that the Reapers FTL technology (which all species FTL is based on) has specific safeguards designed to circumvent FTL collisions and that some species had attempted bypassing these safeguards so FTL ramming could be used as a method of attack. Taken a step further, these bypassed safeguards could allow for the construction of FTL weapons, which would strike with immeasurable force and likely be unstoppable by any kinetic barriers regardless of the size of the projectile.

In this way the ending would actually be using something that was setup during the course of the third game. And if they made the Klendagon weapon a previous cycle's flawed Crucible attempt then THAT would be an even better Chekhov Gun.


Which could just leave us with dark energy or Reapers off the relay network for future games.

Of course, this ending itself would be better if we could go back and start changing things from the beginning of ME2.

Agreed.

And the thing is, as much as anyone complains about ME2, I still like it better than the ending to ME3. I like the Reaper T2 better than the Catalyst. At least there's something in the story that sets up a confrontation with the Reaper T2, and at least we complete the goal we set out to complete in the beginning of the game.

 

[Uszi]

Gonna have to disagree with you on this one.

The problem with ME2 is that nothing really happens. It's really only tangentially involved in the overarching plot. This in effect meant that ME3 had to start out carrying the load of two games since the second game did fuck all to advance the plot in anyway.

Really you could make an argument that ME2 was a contributing factor for just how terrible the beginning/end was for ME3

I mean for god's sake, the first hour of the game is spent on exposition that should have been in the second game. So despite the shit ending and beginning i'm still willing to place ME3 over 2 because it actually was about something other than shepard wasting time with stupid looking aliens. (let's also not forget that ME2 introduced the idea that humanity is special for some reason because reapers now suddenly don't want to murder us but turn us into a retarded terminator.

It was nice in ME2 that the Collectors had a motive that was explained and supported within the frame work of the game, the final encounter was hinted at, and that the writers didn't write themselves into a corner that required space magic to get out of.

Look, I won't defend ME2 extensively, and I think ME3 was a better game overall, but if we're going to compare the Suicide Mission and how it works in the game to London/The Crucible, I honestly think that ME2 executed it better.

As far as ME2 making ME3 worse, no doubt. It set up the stupid stuff about reapers having harvested species cyborgs inside of them, filled with goop. It set up the stupid humans are special for reasons that are dumb. It set up all the logical inconsistencies about things like exploding relays and stuff---there wouldn't be any of the discussions about whether the galaxy was purged of life in Relay explosions if ME2: Arrival hadn't established that exploding relays take out entire planetary systems.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I love how "fucking up SPECTACULARY" equals "does not agree with me" in your eyes.

If you think i am biased towards ME3

You so clearly are, it isn't even funny.

History repeated itself on the ME3 videos of Bob. Unsurpricingly since controversy means more Ad revenue. He HAD to point to Film Critic Hulk as a way to say "See guys? i am not the only one making shit up to win the argument!!" which goes to show how poorly researched was his choice to defend his point, because that article of FCH was acknowledged by the guy HIMSELF to be a poor attempt to explain himself that he had to make 2 more long post JUST to make it clear. And even then, people like Shamus Young have argued his points to no end with articles like this:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17692

A: Just because someone can critique another persons argument does not mean it was poorly researched, B: Hulk was using those later articles to respond to counter arguments, and C: Just because Shamus Young says it doesn't mean it is right.

This isnt much of a disagreement because there are NO points to disagree with. He wasnt even trying.

Of course there are plenty points to disagree with. The fact that Hulk wrote a multiple essays in the thousands of words on the matter pretty much proves that.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I love how "fucking up SPECTACULARY" equals "does not agree with me" in your eyes.

If you think i am biased towards ME3

You so clearly are, it isn't even funny.

History repeated itself on the ME3 videos of Bob. Unsurpricingly since controversy means more Ad revenue. He HAD to point to Film Critic Hulk as a way to say "See guys? i am not the only one making shit up to win the argument!!" which goes to show how poorly researched was his choice to defend his point, because that article of FCH was acknowledged by the guy HIMSELF to be a poor attempt to explain himself that he had to make 2 more long post JUST to make it clear. And even then, people like Shamus Young have argued his points to no end with articles like this:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17692

A: Just because someone can critique another persons argument does not mean it was poorly researched, B: Hulk was using those later articles to respond to counter arguments, and C: Just because Shamus Young says it doesn't mean it is right.

This isnt much of a disagreement because there are NO points to disagree with. He wasnt even trying.

Of course there are plenty points to disagree with. The fact that Hulk wrote a multiple essays in the thousands of words on the matter pretty much proves that.

Wait, i'm confused. What is the argument now?

Me arguing against Dio's statement that everyone who likes the ending or who has argued in favor of it is wrong, because they did not do their research (which was in response to a side comment of mine on a post of his earlier).

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

On the assertions that Freddie Got Fingered should be a secret "Dadaist" peice, I believe someone else said it better than I ever could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G1bGQgHGvM&t=5m10s

 

[Uszi]

Oh excuse me, I misunderstood. If we're just comparing endings then yes ME2 definitely has the better one. I mistook what you said and thought we were comparing both games as a whole.

Edit: though I would argue that what the reapers ultimately wanted to achieve wasn't really that important. They're just machine horrors from darkspace that want to kill everyone. I would say that why the reapers did what they did didn't matter, what mattered was that Reapers are trying to kill everyone, and Commander Shepard and company are the only ones who can stop them by uniting the galaxy under one banner to fight off the tides of darkness.

Yeah, no, ME3 as a whole is rather fantastic, which is why I think the problems with the endings are so annoying. I mean, you can nit pick the story in ME3 -- like why do we spend so much time fighting Cerberus? But the problems pale in comparison to the issues with ME2. And even if I thought ME3 as a whole wasn't good, I think everyone still has to admit that the Tuchanka sequence was completely amazing. I mean, Tuchanka alone is almost a sufficient defense of the entire game I think.

And all of that ignores the vastly superior game play of ME3. Playing ME3 and going back to ME2, and definitely ME1, things feel much clunkier.

I agree with what you wrote about Reaper motives as well. I'd have preferred not knowing then the explanation we got, which made no sense:

 

[Uszi]

You can use some objective measures, yes. But, in order to comment on the quality of the entire thing, not just individual parts of the whole, you have to use subjective measures, making the measurement itself subjective (since you cannot provide a measurement of the quality without using subjective measures).

I don't agree with this sentiment.

First: At what point are you not dealing with an individual thing, and you begin to deal with the "entire" thing?

For instance, in ME3, I imagine we'd both agree the the Star Child is an individual thing, and we could ground our discussion on the Star Child in measures we might both agree are "objective." We can ground our discussion in considerations of the mechanics of the game/narrative and how they work or why they don't, and we don't have to talk about how it made us feel in order to make our point.

But when does something become a broader opinion regarding entire things, which you feel must always be subjective, and when is something still an individual part? For instance, is the end to ME3 a part, or is the end an entire thing?

Second: I still think that if a work's flaws are deep enough, then we can continue to have this objective discussion based on an analysis of mechanics for just about all of the "parts." If we can regard every part as flawed, we should be able to say the entire thing was flawed. I'm not necessarily saying this is ME3, but I am saying that this would be a case where we didn't really need a subjective opinion to make a pronouncement on the whole work.



Sidenote: Maybe I should just stop using the word "bad." We got onto this whole discussion because my initial post was arguing that things can be "objectively bad," by which I meant that you can use an evidence based argument to show they were "bad." I had assumed we could agree that flawed works are "bad," but I guess I haven't given you any reason to make this assumption with me. What else makes something bad though?

I maintain that one's subjective opinion that one likes or does not like something is not necessarily related and affected by whether something is good or bad. You may like something because it is "good," or the quality of the thing might have no affect on how much you like it. However, if you say something is good or bad, you should be able to show why, other than saying that you liked it or disliked it.

I don't really have a problem with saying "flawed" instead of "bad," though. Especially if we can agree that in general cases the more flawed something is, the worse it is. If that is not the case for a specific instance, then we should be able to make arguments specific to the case using examples from what we're talking about to establish the exception.

 

[DioWallachia]

If you think i am biased towards ME3

You so clearly are, it isn't even funny.

Given that i have stated SEVERAL times that i have never played the series (like Bob) and i am doing research for my convenience, because i believe this outrage is something significant for the future of gaming, i believe that i am just a Neutral that found out that ME series has barely an excuse (both inside the narrative and what the developers said) for sucking this bad.

I consider this event something like E.T for the Atari 2600. A mediocre game at best (GoW clone with Light RPG elements) but with some many variables both from the series as a whole AND what was the final product supposed to be, that the shit is bound to happen.

Basically, i am doing the same job as Bob but without the delisions of grandeur, the journalistic "integrity" (sarcastic quotes FTW) and nor the ad revenue he gets by inventing strawmen and coping the AVGN sketches.

Hell, when you get a NOBODY to even call out the "profesional reviewer", you got problems:

A: Just because someone can critique another persons argument does not mean it was poorly researched, B: Hulk was using those later articles to respond to counter arguments, and C: Just because Shamus Young says it doesn't mean it is right.

A:Indeed. But did ANY of is arguments (the first articles at least) had ANYTHING to do with what was shown in the narrative? if not, then its head cannon. You are filling the holes that the writers didnt care to fill themselves and you are not getting paid for it.

B: And STILL there is people making commments on the flaws on his logic. Dont you think that if you want to say something then just DO SO ALREADY? its the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) but he goes on and on that seems more like a red herring rather than a real discusion. He went 3 articles and people still dont get what he means. Its either the readers being stupid or the writer doesnt communicate properly...........just like how the writers of ME3 dont communicate properly something as simple like if the Relay exploded like the Arrival DLC and killed everyone on the solar system they are in or not (writers forgetting continuity again?? oh my, what a discovery i have made)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WallOfText

C:Indeed. But again, FCH could have made its point clearer like Shamus did without making a wall of text. All he had to do is start with "As long something is dramatic/emotional enough, you can forgive a plot hole"

This isnt much of a disagreement because there are NO points to disagree with. He wasnt even trying.

Of course there are plenty points to disagree with. The fact that Hulk wrote a multiple essays in the thousands of words on the matter pretty much proves that.

I was refering to Bob's videos of ME3. I started mentioning how he did the same for Heavens to Metroid by making strawmen rather tha adressing the real issue if the narrative of Metroid Other M is sexist (there is plenty of subtext to prove it) and milking the controversy for Ad Revenue with 4 videos.

At least FCH had the decency (after 3 articles) to divulge in the nature of plot holes and that is something that THE OVERTHINKER forgot to do in exchange of video-gamey sketches.

EDIT1: Fixing the quotes and addding a video.

 

[DioWallachia]

And there's also a segment of fans, and I know one personally, "IRL", who refuse to engage in any sort of discussion about this. I'm talking about someone like me (and maybe you) who was a full on Mass Effect nut, who was totally invested, but who hasn't been back since April, hasn't bought any DLC, etc. The difference is this person still thinks the ending was fantastic because they "didn't want a happy ending," but refuse to acknowledge the flaws in the ending or make an explanation for why this ending is still "good" despite the laundry list of faults.

It strikes me as an attempt to assuage cognitive dissonance, and I'm reminded of him when I'm talking to people who are defending the endings. He wants to like ME3, so he won't admit its flaws to himself. Maybe I'm starting to sound unreasonable, but I think you need to at least be able to explain why the faults don't ruin the ending for you if you claim you like it. And, I'll accept, "I don't care about the faults," as a reasonably good explanation, but I don't even usually get this. Instead I get people ducking out of the conversation or a refusal to even acknowledge the faults exist.

Or, at least, this was back in April. Honestly, this thread is the first time I've revisited any of this in months. I swear.

This is something that i have been trying to explain several times. I got this hypothesis that since EVERYONE (to the unbiased game "journalism" to even OTHER fans) keep barking the lie that "everything is subjective" and that "you are entitled and dont know any better" the fans of ME WANT to say something negative that its obvious that it affects them..........but dont trust themselves to do it. They have been lied so many times that they have been affected, they believe that "if so many people say that i am wrong or that there is something wrong with me, then it must be true. Millions of people cant be wrong, cant they?"

Reminds me of "World Fell Silent" a freeware about a girl that commited suicide:


This is bulling in its finest form. One that doesnt leave marks on your skin but in your head, always doubting your own potential because everyone just jumped the bandwagon fallacy and dont want to critice their surrundings anymore.

Just let it go. There is no point in complaining. We are nothing but pebbles in an ocean. You cant make the difference in the industry, stop being so naive!!

Repeat Ad Nauseum.

 

[Uszi]

A: Just because someone can critique another persons argument does not mean it was poorly researched, B: Hulk was using those later articles to respond to counter arguments, and C: Just because Shamus Young says it doesn't mean it is right.

A:Indeed. But did ANY of is arguments (the first articles at least) had ANYTHING to do with what was shown in the narrative? if not, then its head cannon. You are filling the holes that the writers didnt care to fill themselves and you are not getting paid for it.

B: And STILL there is people making commments on the flaws on his logic. Dont you think that if you want to say something then just DO SO ALREADY? its the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) but he goes on and on that seems more like a red herring rather than a real discusion. He went 3 articles and people still dont get what he means. Its either the readers being stupid or the writer doesnt communicate properly...........just like how the writers of ME3 dont communicate properly something as simple like if the Relay exploded like the Arrival DLC and killed everyone on the solar system they are in or not (writers forgetting continuity again?? oh my, what a discovery i have made)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WallOfText

C:Indeed. But again, FCH could have made its point clearer like Shamus did without making a wall of text. All he had to do is start with "As long something is dramatic/emotional enough, you can forgive a plot hole"

Heh, I started writing my own wall-of-text rebuttal of FCH's ME3 review, and then I realized it was 3AM and I was falling perilously deep down the rabbit hole.

I noticed a trend where FCH falls back on symbolism and "art"(TM) to defend the incoherent quality of the ending. The problem is that for 60-90 hours, from ME1 to ME3 up till Harbinger wastes Hammer Team in the Conduit charge, we've had what I guess you could call a reliable narrator. While Mass Effect isn't narrated, per se, we are shown cut scenes and for the entire series we've always been able to superficially interpret a cut scene as being concrete things happening at specific times and places. In ME1, Shepard surviving Sovereign's explosion, and rising from the wreckage might have symbolic elements, but it can also be trusted to be a "real" thing that "happened."

This is no longer true for anything that happens after you get hit by Harbinger's beam in ME3. The dramatic shift in tone, convention and genre is what fuels all of the indoctrination theory folks. This is because it is generally considered bad to make such a colossal shift to so many important story elements so late in the narrative, especially if you offer no reason at all for why you've done this. If it's all a dream or indoctrination, then there's a reason to make everything so surreal. But because Indoctrination Theory is not true, then the only explanation is the failed effort of Hudson and Walters to write something "meaningful."

I think the words I used last night, before I reread what I wrote and just decided to log off without posting anything, was, "If Casey Hudson and Mac Walters wanted to write a surrealist allegory for the cycle of life and death, they should not have chosen to tack that allegory onto the very tail end of a nearly completed work that uses none of those conventions anywhere else in the series."

Anyway, just about every single one of FCH's points is a super simple rebuttal. FCH says, yeah, this happened, but I really liked it, so it's forgivable. Again, this is why I was arguing for like 3 pages earlier why we need to separate liking/not liking something from how good it is. Just because one personally finds something moving, or beautiful, or poetic doesn't mean that it isn't inherently flawed to the extent that it is broken. You can certainly still like the broken ending of ME3 if it moved you. But that doesn't mean it wasn't broken.

Just let it go. There is no point in complaining. We are nothing but pebbles in an ocean. You cant make the difference in the industry, stop being so naive!!

Repeat Ad Nauseum.

I'm not really trying to change anything. I'm really just having fun discussing the issue. It would be nice if everyone admitted that there is clearly something wrong with the ending when it alienated so many of the most ardent fans, and that so much of the credit ME3 gets critically has nothing to do with the endings. Then maybe we could examine the faults as they exist in ME3 and other people won't make such bad endings.

But I'm not overly concerned, personally, with trying to make that happen.

 

[BreakfastMan]

You can use some objective measures, yes. But, in order to comment on the quality of the entire thing, not just individual parts of the whole, you have to use subjective measures, making the measurement itself subjective (since you cannot provide a measurement of the quality without using subjective measures).

I don't agree with this sentiment.

First: At what point are you not dealing with an individual thing, and you begin to deal with the "entire" thing?

Whenever you begin to make quality statements about the thing as a whole, and not just one individual piece.

Second: I still think that if a work's flaws are deep enough, then we can continue to have this objective discussion based on an analysis of mechanics for just about all of the "parts." If we can regard every part as flawed, we should be able to say the entire thing was flawed. I'm not necessarily saying this is ME3, but I am saying that this would be a case where we didn't really need a subjective opinion to make a pronouncement on the whole work.

I don't disagree. I do disagree that all parts can be evaluated objectively, but I don't disagree with the sentiment in this passage.

Sidenote: Maybe I should just stop using the word "bad." We got onto this whole discussion because my initial post was arguing that things can be "objectively bad," by which I meant that you can use an evidence based argument to show they were "bad." I had assumed we could agree that flawed works are "bad," but I guess I haven't given you any reason to make this assumption with me. What else makes something bad though?

It wasn't so much the word "bad" that set me off as it was the presence of the word "objectively" in front of it.

I maintain that one's subjective opinion that one likes or does not like something is not necessarily related and affected by whether something is good or bad. You may like something because it is "good," or the quality of the thing might have no affect on how much you like it. However, if you say something is good or bad, you should be able to show why, other than saying that you liked it or disliked it.

Again, I don't disagree.

I don't really have a problem with saying "flawed" instead of "bad," though. Especially if we can agree that in general cases the more flawed something is, the worse it is. If that is not the case for a specific instance, then we should be able to make arguments specific to the case using examples from what we're talking about to establish the exception.

I kind of agree with this and kind of do not, mainly because I consider things that are "ambitious, but flawed" to be superior to "un-ambitious, but well executed" (see: my preference of Deadly Premonition to the COD series).

 

[BreakfastMan]

If you think i am biased towards ME3

You so clearly are, it isn't even funny.

Given that i have stated SEVERAL times that i have never played the series (like Bob) and i am doing research for my convenience, because i believe this outrage is something significant for the future of gaming, i believe that i am just a Neutral that found out that ME series has barely an excuse (both inside the narrative and what the developers said) for sucking this bad.

One would think if you were doing this just for your own convenience and were truly neutral, you would have given the opposition more time of day...

A: Just because someone can critique another persons argument does not mean it was poorly researched, B: Hulk was using those later articles to respond to counter arguments, and C: Just because Shamus Young says it doesn't mean it is right.

A:Indeed. But did ANY of is arguments (the first articles at least) had ANYTHING to do with what was shown in the narrative? if not, then its head cannon. You are filling the holes that the writers didnt care to fill themselves and you are not getting paid for it.

Yes, they did.

B: And STILL there is people making commments on the flaws on his logic.

And? That is what discussion is for. What do you think we are doing right now? And have been for multiple pages now?

Dont you think that if you want to say something then just DO SO ALREADY? its the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) but he goes on and on that seems more like a red herring rather than a real discusion.

The KISS principle doesn't really apply to making an effective argument.

He went 3 articles and people still dont get what he means. Its either the readers being stupid or the writer doesnt communicate properly.

Have you read the comments section of those articles? Obviously some did. Hell, I would guess most of his critics got what he meant; you kind of have to in order to make a counter argument. If someone "gets" your argument, that does not mean they have to automatically agree with it.

C:Indeed. But again, FCH could have made its point clearer like Shamus did without making a wall of text.

In the first article critiqueing the Hulk, Shamus had a wall of text. In his original article criticizing the ME3 ending, he linked to a 40 minute video on the matter, and multiple long essays.

 

[DioWallachia]

One would think if you were doing this just for your own convenience and were truly neutral, you would have given the opposition more time of day...

Havent i given plenty of links for both sides of the arguement already in this thread AND other threads?? Here we go again. Copypasta BRB.

---In oposition:---
http://awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe
doycetesterman.com/index.php/2012/03/mass-effect-tolkein-and-your-bullshit-artistic-process/
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=15395
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17692
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17745
http://awtr.ca/longn-pyrrhus
http://awtr.ca/long:how-the-catalyst-and-the-me3-ec-failed
http://awtr.ca/long:mass-effect-3-and-the-art-of-criticism-or-why-colin-mor
http://thesecondslice.blogspot.ca/
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/15168836/1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/09/mass-effect-3-bioware-and-the-perils-of-writing-about-video-games/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/06/15/mass-effect-3-is-about-the-journey-not-the-destination-according-to-new-gamestop-ad/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/30/six-reasons-why-changing-the-mass-effect-3-ending-wont-threaten-its-artistic-integrity/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/27/mass-effect-3-and-corporate-influence-over-commercial-art/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/13/mass-effect-3-and-the-pernicious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/03/26/why-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3-started-a-furor/?mod=WSJBlog
http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-mass-effect-3-extended-cut-doesnt-fill-the-plot-holes-it-allows-you-to

MrBTongue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NNUImNL9Ok

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


---In Defense:----
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/

A:Indeed. But did ANY of is arguments (the first articles at least) had ANYTHING to do with what was shown in the narrative? if not, then its head cannon. You are filling the holes that the writers didnt care to fill themselves and you are not getting paid for it.

Yes, they did.

O Rly? then care to elaborate what does "cycles" have to do with anything about the ending being badly handled? and how come that FCH didnt use the "cycles" example once more in the other articles IF the ending was trully about that?

I will wait

B: And STILL there is people making commments on the flaws on his logic.

And? That is what discussion is for. What do you think we are doing right now? And have been for multiple pages now?

Basically nothing. FLC saids that a few plot holes are tolerable if they serve a good dramatic purpose and you say that we have to judge the WHOLE work to say if its objectively bad. Ok...........there are plenty of evidence (like the smudboy videos) that not only the game itself its flawed, but the whole narrative of the series is flawed.

Other than that, i dont see why everyone here is having a problem seeing that.

Dont you think that if you want to say something then just DO SO ALREADY? its the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) but he goes on and on that seems more like a red herring rather than a real discusion.

The KISS principle doesn't really apply to making an effective argument.

Brevety is the soul of wit. He is supposed to be a profesional whose job is to NOTICE AND CRITICE this kind of crap, yet he can do it in its own colums. Shorter doesnt mean better but when the argument he makes is filler and doesnt add to anything at all (like the blogger Nick Alomos and its WRITERS DISEASE blog did) then the KISS would apply.

He went 3 articles and people still dont get what he means. Its either the readers being stupid or the writer doesnt communicate properly.

Have you read the comments section of those articles? Obviously some did. Hell, I would guess most of his critics got what he meant; you kind of have to in order to make a counter argument. If someone "gets" your argument, that does not mean they have to automatically agree with it.

I dont mean "dont get" as "i dont understand what you wrote", i mean it in the sense of "i dont understand how you end up in that conclusion".

Kinda like The Catalyst. We "get" what he wants to do but we dont get "why" a logical and cold AI would even go ahead with a plan so idiotic. We understand the chain of logic but not the end result of that chain. How does FCH see this "cycle" thing as a valid example for a broken narrative? how is this new theme/message better than the previously stablished one of "Unity despite difference", like Lord of The Rings in SPACE. If making an statement that has NOTHING to do with the narrative or what was shown to the audience all along, is enough to make something art, then by that logic, Tolkien should have made an anti-drug message at the end of LoTR.

Just when Frollo is about to drop the ring to the lava on the mountain of DOOM, Tom Bombadil appears and says that the ring doesnt contain the essense of Sauron, it also contains Gandalf's desire for smoking from his pipe (or whatever the fuck he smokes everyone once in a while) and since he never stopped smoking, evil will reform over and over until he abandon his eeeeeeevil addiction.

Because, as you know, the story was about the evils of drugs all along, didnt you know? what you say? that doesnt make sense or was even foreshadowed in the least?? well, its Tolkien vision, he can sabotage is own work whenever he wants, even when he made an essay "On Fairies" on how the storyteller fails if he looses the willing suspension of disbelief of his audience. Fuck that too, his NEW vision is better.

C:Indeed. But again, FCH could have made its point clearer like Shamus did without making a wall of text.

In the first article critiqueing the Hulk, Shamus had a wall of text. In his original article criticizing the ME3 ending, he linked to a 40 minute video on the matter, and multiple long essays.

Yes, and that made sense. Instead of rambling, shamus does this: "This is bad because blah blah and here is a link to prove it. And even if we look at it in this angle is also wrong and here is moar evidence and blah blah"

FCH just rambles from point to point and expect the audience to absorv and remember every single bit like if they had ANY connection.

EDIT: I am in a rush, i hope the links will give the people of the thread something to think about. BRB shutting down the lights.

 

[BreakfastMan]

link snip...

Okay, and which out of all those articles and vidoes gives a good, solid defense of the ending? And which gives a poor criticism of the ending?

O Rly? then care to elaborate what does "cycles" have to do with anything about the ending being badly handled? and how come that FCH didnt use the "cycles" example once more in the other articles IF the ending was trully about that?

I will wait

The whole cycles thing was Hulk's interpretation of the ending and the themes of the series. It doesn't much matter because it doesn't have much to do with his argument in defense of the ending.

Basically nothing. FLC saids that a few plot holes are tolerable if they serve a good dramatic purpose and you say that we have to judge the WHOLE work to say if its objectively bad. Ok...........there are plenty of evidence (like the smudboy videos) that not only the game itself its flawed, but the whole narrative of the series is flawed.

Other than that, i dont see why everyone here is having a problem seeing that.

As I have explained for a while now flawed != objectively bad.

Brevety is the soul of wit. He is supposed to be a profesional whose job is to NOTICE AND CRITICE this kind of crap, yet he can do it in its own colums. Shorter doesnt mean better but when the argument he makes is filler and doesnt add to anything at all (like the blogger Nick Alomos and its WRITERS DISEASE blog did) then the KISS would apply.

Except he actually did argue for something, so I don't see what you are getting at.

I dont mean "dont get" as "i dont understand what you wrote", i mean it in the sense of "i dont understand how you end up in that conclusion".

So, basically, some people have disagreed with his conclusions and interpretations of the story, and continue to do so after he writes more to counter their arguments. As commonly happens. I don't see how this proves he messed up.

Yes, and that made sense. Instead of rambling, shamus does this: "This is bad because blah blah and here is a link to prove it. And even if we look at it in this angle is also wrong and here is moar evidence and blah blah"

He doesn't. He links to more opinion articles on the subject by people who share his opinions, and expects them to fill in for any arguments he doesn't make.

 

[BreakfastMan]

snip

Except in this case FCH is just defending the ending with that age old cop out "It's good because I like it and that's just my opinion and my opinion can't ever be proven wrong so there!" He's not really setting up a discussion he's just shutting the discussion down before it even starts. I mean how many times are we going to see the Art Shield pulled out in defense of poor story telling? "This ending was poor." "Doesn't matter, art!" That to me is just in poor taste.

I think you are misinterpreting Hulk's point in that original article. He was more arguing against the notion that since the ending didn't give us everything we wanted/expected it was "bad" (as well as some digs at the retake movement); he just seemed to add in his own interpretation for context.

Captcha: Face the music. Not sure if captcha is on my side or yours...

 

[BreakfastMan]

snip

Except in this case FCH is just defending the ending with that age old cop out "It's good because I like it and that's just my opinion and my opinion can't ever be proven wrong so there!" He's not really setting up a discussion he's just shutting the discussion down before it even starts. I mean how many times are we going to see the Art Shield pulled out in defense of poor story telling? "This ending was poor." "Doesn't matter, art!" That to me is just in poor taste.

I think you are misinterpreting Hulk's point in that original article. He was more arguing against the notion that since the ending didn't give us everything we wanted/expected it was "bad" (as well as some digs at the retake movement); he just seemed to add in his own interpretation for context.

Captcha: Face the music. Not sure if captcha is on my side or yours...

Except that argument really is kind of a strawman, it's the same strawman Bob used when he was trolling. While i'm sure there were plenty of people who just wanted a happy ending to their waifu fairytale, most of the Retake Mass Effect people just wanted an ending that was true to how it was marketed, or at the very least, just made sense. People like Moviebob seem to think that the only reason people hate something is because it doesn't adhere exactly to their tastes when (at least here) that's not really the case.

Eh, it isn't really a strawman if people actually hold those positions and have argued for them...

 

[Machine Man 1992]

And now this piece of shit, a game worthy of a Screw Attack SAGY award, gets Game of The Year.

Truly, there is no hope left.

 

[Zhukov]

And now this piece of shit, a game worthy of a Screw Attack SAGY award, gets Game of The Year.

Truly, there is no hope left.

I am drinking your tears.

They are both salty and so very very sweet.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

And now this piece of shit, a game worthy of a Screw Attack SAGY award, gets Game of The Year.

Truly, there is no hope left.

I am drinking your tears.

They are both salty and so very very sweet.

Joke's on you, I can't cry.

In all seriousness, I can't even get worked up anymore. I can take comfort, though, in the knowledge that I have other, better games to play.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I think that's the last of the posts on this thread.

Well guys, it's been fun. Now it's time to put this monster to sleep. Can't say I'm going to miss it.