One Last look at Mass Effect 3.

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
To Politeia,

What is your goal at this point? It seems you're just arguing for the sake of it. Are you trying to get the last word in on this false notion that I can't return an unsatisfactory product for full or partial price?

Because I can argue until the cows come home and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. You can't convince anyone that your condescending anti-consumer bullshit is a good idea.
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
Falsename said:
...Remember that games don't belong to you, they belong to those creating them. All you can really do is hold on tight and hope whatever you're expecting lives up to the standards you're wishing for. Mass Effect 3's ending fix was a once in a lifetime thing, and it shouldn't open the flood gates to demanding changes to published games. Only because of how great the game was, did we allow ourselves to take 'action'.

Merry Christmas :)
Hey False, I've been reading your points in this thread, and I agree with 90% of them. And I saw you were critical of MovieBob, which is good, because as much as I still appreciate some of Bob's input, he was an ultra douchenozzle in how he handle the Retake Mass Effect thing.

What I find interesting is that you ultimately choose to adopt one of the arguments used by Bob and Kotaku and others.

"Remember that games don't belong to you, they belong to those creating them."

I mean, this essentially boils down to the "artistic integrity" thing.

There are two problems with this argument that I can identify:


1. Just because something is art, this does not mean it is immune to criticism.
Objectively speaking, as a narrative, the ending is broken and bad. You can find anywhere on the net serious treatments of the ending by film critics, literary critics, game critics. And it's all bad. Even IGN and Kotaku, who were on the payroll of game publishers, who gave the game perfect scores, admit that the ending is not good. The only people who seem to defend the ending are people who like to be different on the internet. No one who I've seen defending the ending as "good" or as a successful narrative has made a good argument, and I've looked for it. I'm still looking for it.

So we can all certainly sit around and moan about how bad the ending was. Exactly the same way we can sit around and moan about the Star Wars prequels.

2. Games, especially triple A titles made by big publishers, are commercial art and not "art" like a Picasso, an independent film, or an independent game.

There are a few reasons why this artistic integrity argument is invalid.

First of all, Bioware even admitted that there artistic integrity isn't worth anything, because they immediately gave up on their endings and patched them free of charge. They did this because they are making a corporate product, and not art. Consumers of their product were dissatisfied, so they changed it. Picasso didn't change his art style when he was criticized, and Charlie Chaplain kept trying to make silent films after movies started being made with sound. Bob Dylan didn't back down when he changed his style up and lost all his old fans. Artists don't cave to popular opinion to simply make money or recuperate loses.

Second of all, because the game is published to make money for a publisher and not to make an artistic statement, it is more akin to commercial art. Mass Effect 3 has more in common with the Logo of your favorite sports team, or a brand logo. The controversy of the endings, and the subsequent changes made to them, reminds me more of what happened to Tropicana [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/media/23adcol.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] when they tried to change their logo then anything that has ever happened in literature, art or film.

Third of all, the demand for a change to the endings made by Retake Mass Effect was reasonable because the corporate producers of the product Mass Effect intended to release multiple changes and additions to the game for profit post release, i.e. DLC. So, changing the game isn't "ruining artistic integrity" regardless of how much integrity they had in the first place, because they were already planning on changing the game anyway. Many Retake Mass Effect people even stated they would pay for a new ending. Mass Effect is not like the Mona Lisa, or a film, or a song, because no artist has patched the Mona Lisa, Bob Dylan never patched a song, and most film makers don't patch their films (with the exception of George Lucas, who everyone now identifies as being more of a corporate shill than an artist because of it).

These are the reasons why I reject the argument that it was totally unreasonable to even have a discussion of changing the endings because of "artistic integrity" or because the game somehow belongs to Bioware.
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
A separate thought from my one above, not directed at anyone in particular:

It is an objective fact that the end of Mass Effect 3 is bad. This can be established with facts and arguments based on an analysis of the ending. The ending is bad. Even the extended cut is bad, it's just not as bad as the vanilla endings.

Now, it is perfectly okay to still like the ending. I can say, "I liked the ending," because this my opinion. It is not correct, however, to say that the endings were "Good." Because I can't establish that they were good, because there is no factual basis for arguing that the endings were good.

So one thing is an opinion (I liked the endings) and one is a statement concerning factual reality (The endings were good). That's the difference. I can like bad things. Lots of people liked Transformers, for instance. There's a lot of internet snobbery against people who like objectively bad things, but I don't judge anyone for that. Like what you like, and don't worry about other people's opinions. But don't misrepresent something as being objectively good when all we mean is we like it despite its flaws.
 

Jeremy Skitz

New member
Jul 1, 2009
66
0
0
*SPOILERS*

I'm playing mass effect 3 for the second time now, I love playing the game and getting to know the characters. However, I get annoyed at certain parts of the game because I can think of so many ideas that should have been obvious and were not added. For example, in Mass effect 2 when you start the suicide mission, you get to send your squad to do things on the base, like going through the ventilation to open a door. It would have made sense if in mass effect 3, they decided to develop this mechanic to apply to the massive army you have spent the game gathering. Perhaps you could have different squad members lead some armies and squads to alleviate pressure for the main squad led by Shepard, then they can make choices depending on what they have to do. Perhaps before the main battle Shepard and Anderson could discuss where best to put the armies and find where they would be most effective. Doing it that way could give more ending variations and make the effect of the army seem less superficial. It would have taken longer to make, but at least we would know bioware have enough love for their project to work out all of the cracks.

The story wasn't bad, though bits of it made little sense like the when Shepard was sent to the council to get help for earth, though obviously the rest of the galaxy has the same problem so asking for forces for earths aid was asking a little too much. Obviously the council refuse so the game has you search for a Turian primarch to give you forces for earth... while palavan is under reaper attack just like earth so they are in no state to help. You still find the primarch, who surprisingly agrees to come with you and will lend earth aid from the remaining turian fleet if you can get palavan aid from the krogan who are not currently under attack and despise the Turians... I found that retarded, why didn't Shepard skip over the Turians after seeing palavan and go straight for the Krogan who- as I said before- are not under attack and depending on your choices in the first game may have Shepard's old friend leading most of the krogan.

They tried too hard in finding an explanation for the reapers, it seems unnecessary to try. Sovereign said in mass effect 1 that their reasons for destroying all organic life is incomprehensible. Why not leave it at that?

In truth I could write an essay on the faults of mass effect 3, I could come up with theories on why so many mistakes were made and I could come up with lots of ideas they could have had to improve it... hell, I could probably re-write the whole story. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed mass effect 3, especially after playing 1 and 2 all the way through. The backlash against it was extremely childish, it is just game after all. I cannot lose faith in bioware because of one game which was quite clearly very difficult to end perfectly. Pressure from EA was never going to help the situation either. I look forward to the next game and to see what they learned from the experience they have had, and I will buy the shit out the next mass effect.
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
There's a huge disconnect between what you're presented, and the codex.
If you read the codex entries, the war actually seems quite winnable.
A cruiser (Cruisers are the mid-weight ships. It goes Fighter, Frigate, Cruiser, Dreadnaught/Carrier. The Normandy is a very high-end cruiser) is about on-par with a Destroyer-Class (The kind that you see walking on the ground, and that you manage to kill) reaper.
Due to their size, Sovereign-Class (The big ones) Reapers cannot turn very fast, have their primary weapon mounted on the front, and are therefore vulnerable to flanking tactics. 2-3 Dreadnaughts (The biggest ships with the biggest guns) can take down a boss-Reaper.
The Reapers have immensely powerful shields. This protects them from kinetic weapons. (Weapons that shoot bullets) After the battle of the Citadel, Sovereign's main weapon was reverse engineered, and now many fighters and Dreadnaughts have Thanix weapons, which use heat and force, and therefore get some damage through kinetic barriers.

If you don't read the codex, you're presented with an unwinnable fight that needs a magic space plot-device.
If you read the codex, you're presented with a very difficult war that could be won if the galaxy worked together.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Uszi said:
A separate thought from my one above, not directed at anyone in particular:

It is an objective fact that the end of Mass Effect 3 is bad. This can be established with facts and arguments based on an analysis of the ending. The ending is bad. Even the extended cut is bad, it's just not as bad as the vanilla endings.

Now, it is perfectly okay to still like the ending. I can say, "I liked the ending," because this my opinion. It is not correct, however, to say that the endings were "Good." Because I can't establish that they were good, because there is no factual basis for arguing that the endings were good.

So one thing is an opinion (I liked the endings) and one is a statement concerning factual reality (The endings were good). That's the difference. I can like bad things. Lots of people liked Transformers, for instance. There's a lot of internet snobbery against people who like objectively bad things, but I don't judge anyone for that. Like what you like, and don't worry about other people's opinions. But don't misrepresent something as being objectively good when all we mean is we like it despite its flaws.
"Bad" is an inherently subjective word.
Something can never be "objectively bad" because that is a contradiction in terms.

All those arguments you talk about are nothing more than issues that are generally agreed to make a work less enjoyable. That is not the same as being "objectively bad".

A Deus Ex Machina is not factually bad. A plot hole is not factually bad. They are just things the people tend to agree are unenjoyable. They could very well be a culture of aliens whose literature is full of plot holes because the aliens enjoy making up their own story to fill the hole, and in that culture a story without such holes is considered awful and pointless.

Those aliens wouldn't be enjoying "objective bad" stories, they'd just have a different perspective on story telling.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Oh my god, this thread is HILARIOUS. I cannot stop laughing over here while reading this thing. Oh man, keep it up everyone, keep it up. It really makes my day. XD *munches popcorn*
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
Souplex said:
There's a huge disconnect between what you're presented, and the codex.
If you read the codex entries, the war actually seems quite winnable.
not really
from the Mass Effect codex "Citadel Space"
"Citadel Space is an unofficial term referring to any region of space controlled by a species that acknowledge the authority of the Citadel Council. At first glance, it appears this territory encompasses most of the galaxy. In reality, however, less then 1% of the stars have been explored."

less than one percent of the stars have been explored meaning there could be entire empires controlling over 50% of the galaxy that we just havnt met yet, however everone in Mass Effect 3 keeps going on about how shepard has united the "entire galaxy"

and the reapers are a galactic invasion fleet meaning they should completely dwarf the citadel forces, which i remind you just one reaper managed to dwindle a fair bit

ok im actually going to stop here before i point out EVERY plot hole and inconsistency there is in ME3
 

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
Maze1125 said:
"Bad" is an inherently subjective word.
Something can never be "objectively bad" because that is a contradiction in terms.

All those arguments you talk about are nothing more than issues that are generally agreed to make a work less enjoyable. That is not the same as being "objectively bad".

A Deus Ex Machina is not factually bad. A plot hole is not factually bad. They are just things the people tend to agree are unenjoyable. They could very well be a culture of aliens whose literature is full of plot holes because the aliens enjoy making up their own story to fill the hole, and in that culture a story without such holes is considered awful and pointless.

Those aliens wouldn't be enjoying "objective bad" stories, they'd just have a different perspective on story telling.
But take a guess, we are humans and we have different standards. Thousands of years worth of writtings have taught us well on that it makes a good story (not a SUCCESSFUL story that sells, mind you)

Also, if everything is subjective because there is no "objective way to know if somethingis good or bad" then Transformer 2, Mein Kampf, Birth of a Nation, Superman 64, Daikatana, Freddy Got Fingerred and Twilight are as good as Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind and Melancholia.

Can you really say with a straight face that those are good movies?
 

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
Uszi said:
What are your thoughts on The Agreement by Armando Troisi?? how much is "the player story" and how much is also part of the artist?

It seems that up to ME2, the artist and the player had an agreement to cooperate but after ME3......yeah.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
DioWallachia said:
Also, if everything is subjective because there is no "objective way to know if somethingis good or bad" then Transformer 2, Mein Kampf, Birth of a Nation, Superman 64, Daikatana, Freddy Got Fingerred and Twilight are as good as Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind and Melancholia.

Can you really say with a straight face that those are good movies?
I can say with a straight face that Birth of a Nation is an immensely important film. Whether that makes it good or not is up to you. (EDIT: Oh yes, forgot to mention it has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, was put into the library of congress for being culturally significant, and was on the AFI's 100 Years... 100 movies list at no. 44)

And there have been many people who have argued that Freddy Got Fingered is a dadaist masterpiece. Additionally there many are people who have argued that Michael Bay is a great film auteur.
 

Tomeran

New member
Nov 17, 2011
156
0
0
Renegade Shepard said:
I say we stop arguing about all this and question how Shepard became the most sexiest bastard in the Galaxy.
Renegade Shep! I thought you were holed up at some remote hidden paradise world drinking margaritas and hanging with a duo of love-starved Asari, living off the royalties from the vids!


As for your question: Good question! There needs to be a proper scientific investigation into this.
 

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
DioWallachia said:
Also, if everything is subjective because there is no "objective way to know if somethingis good or bad" then Transformer 2, Mein Kampf, Birth of a Nation, Superman 64, Daikatana, Freddy Got Fingerred and Twilight are as good as Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind and Melancholia.

Can you really say with a straight face that those are good movies?
I can say with a straight face that Birth of a Nation is an immensely important film. Whether that makes it good or not is up to you. (EDIT: Oh yes, forgot to mention it has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, was put into the library of congress for being culturally significant, and was on the AFI's 100 Years... 100 movies list at no. 44)

And there have been many people who have argued that Freddy Got Fingered is a dadaist masterpiece. Additionally there many are people who have argued that Michael Bay is a great film auteur.
Of course that Birth of a Nation is significant, i am glad that someone is paying attention here, because it at least moved the medium foward (and the director made another movie to compenzate the fact that the KKK was reborn thanks to the movie. Opss)

But the others? what is so significant about explotions on a MB film? are they a commentary on how people need everything in EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME to feel anything? or because he is a douche that doesnt know how to make good cinema without the lowest common denominator? How will Dadaism ever sucked at making anti art? it seems similar to The Tropeless Tale.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/TheTropelessTale?from=Main.TheTropelessTale

If they succeed, then most likely that people as a whole will think that its a work of art for the sheer despair they felt when seeing the work. In the other, if it sucks then it will be labeled as one of MANY other bad films but dont destroy the medium at all because they can just ignore it.

And going back to Birth of a Nation. It may have moved the medium.......but at WHAT price? how many lifes have the KKK taken away thanks to the "inspiration" that the movie gave them? would the movie keep the quality intact if the director changes some things to not give the racists a huge boner?

Same for ME3, if somehow, the ending was a work of art, then what price is the medium and everyone else paying in return? its seems likely that the ONLY message that ending has is "As long you use the Artistic Integrity Card, you can get away with void promises and lazy writting" for every developer to abuse.
 

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Also, Freddy Got Fingered was "supposed" to be a deconstruction of the comedies at the time, that doesnt make it Dadaism. The purpose of deconstruction is to criticize a trope or genre, and as far as i am aware, criticing something does make it anti-art. Otherwise, everytime we ***** about something either by facts, opinions or making a whole work out of it, it would be considered anti-art.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
DioWallachia said:
But the others? what is so significant about explotions on a MB film? are they a commentary on how people need everything in EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME to feel anything? or because he is a douche that doesnt know how to make good cinema without the lowest common denominator?
Those who argue for Bay's status as an auteur don't make them based on the complexity of his stories; they make them based on his skill as a director. Here is an essay on the matter by a fairly well-respected film theorist:

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/48-armageddon

How will Dadaism ever sucked at making anti art? it seems similar to The Tropeless Tale.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/TheTropelessTale?from=Main.TheTropelessTale

If they succeed, then most likely that people as a whole will think that its a work of art for the sheer despair they felt when seeing the work. In the other, if it sucks then it will be labeled as one of MANY other bad films but dont destroy the medium at all because they can just ignore it.
That is more of a criticism of the Dadaist movement itself, not as FGF's status as a dadaist film or the fact that many consider it to be one. And even though you did criticize it's status as Dada, the fact some critics have claimed it to be a secret dadaist masterpiece (or, in the case of A.O. Scott, performance art) seems to illustrate that things are not so black and white as you try to make them out to be.
And going back to Birth of a Nation. It may have moved the medium.......but at WHAT price? how many lifes have the KKK taken away thanks to the "inspiration" that the movie gave them? would the movie keep the quality intact if the director changes some things to not give the racists a huge boner?
Arguing over hypotheticals is a terrible practice. I am not going to engage in it.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Devoneaux said:
Well let's bring this full circle, how does any of this apply to ME3?
It doesn't much. I was presenting arguments against Dio's opinion that there are objective ways to know if things are good or bad, by directly attacking his examples of objectively bad films. Wasn't really talking about ME3's ending, his statement was just something that stuck out to me and I decided to respond to. I have no real interest in discussing the ending further. I did enough of that back in March and April when it was still topical and relevant to do so; so much in fact that I am sick of discussion about it.
The thing a lot of people get stuck on when it comes to art is "Art can't be good or bad, it's just a matter of opinion" Thing is, that doesn't really apply when talking on a mechanical level (Wether or not something is a plot hole isn't really a matter of opinion.)
That is all well and good (I don't agree, but I would rather not get into a discussion about the interpretation of plot holes), but, and here is the thing, having plot holes does not make something objectively bad. It just makes it flawed.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
Uszi said:
The problem with any pre Reaper invasion game for me is that I know it's all going to go to shit anyway so what's the point.

I'd much rather have a game that deals with the aftermath so at least I know there was some vague point to Shepard's actions :/