didnt you hear, NObody ever buys single player only games anymore, and if an EA executive says it then it must be true.MrDelicious said:
One Last look at Mass Effect 3.
- Thread starter Machine Man 1992
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...Is that Graham from LoadingReadyRun? The guy sounds exactly like him.Akratus said:
Ahem. On topic, I still haven't been able to replay the game, nor have I purchased any of the DLC. Oddly enough, since that debacle, I've been having a ***** of a time finishing games. Dishonored and Borderlands 2 are still waiting for me to wrap up.
I'm honestly just disappointed. I shouldn't be thinking "I could write this better" when I'm talking about a Bioware game. I never would have imagined I'd even be typing that sentence a few years ago.
I believe this is what you were referring to: http://www.destructoid.com/ea-boss-proudly-refuses-to-publish-single-player-games-234402.phtmlspartandude said:
I'll just share my own views on ME3. The ending sucked, the extended cut sucked, and the last time I checked the retake ME3 ending didn't destroy artistic integrity in the industry.
Please, tell me what I didn't understand, because I'm pretty sure I understand the ending pretty clearly. It was lazy.Aeonxan said:
Well, Gibeau is a huge idiot. To me he is worse than Riccitiello. Riccitiello is just somewhat ignorant and quite greedy, but Gibeau is not just ignorant and greedy, he is also smug and arrogantly convinced that he is some sort of hotshot genius who knows what the people want.MrDelicious said:
No, I don't have to redefine anything. When I began this discussion, I used the definition from the dictionary.Maze1125 said:
What do you think objective means?
I would recommend using one of these fine dictionary definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
https://www.google.com/search?q=objective+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-aIf you are judging something "according to commonly agreed criteria" then you are not judging it based purely on feelings but on an established measure, and thus you are being objective rather than subjective. This is a totally unmodified usage of our language.
No, we don't have just 1 non-arbitrary measure. We have many, such as:BreakfastMan said:
Deus ex machina
Continuity errors
Thematic inconsistencies
Failure to establish setting
Failure to foreshadow important events
The unfired Chekhov's gun
Retcons
Magical MacGuffins
etc, etc, etc.
None of these examples of bad writing is arbitrary. These are problems that have been demonstrated through time and example to weaken narratives, and to the extent that you have more of these problems or rely too heavily on them without an adequate reason for doing so, you have done an objectively poorer job than if you had none of these problems or could at least account for them within your narrative. It's not like sloppy writing is considered sloppy just because some elite critics have opinions on the issue. Its because the more of this crap you shovel into a narrative, the harder it becomes to read/watch/understand.
The idea that critics sit around and only discuss plot holes is incorrect. You could disprove the notion by reading any literary or film critique.
Now, you continue to mention these absolutist arguments which I have never made. My guess is that when I say something is "objectively bad," you are misreading this as me assuming things are either good or bad. This is not what I meant. I simply meant I can use objective measures by taking examples of flawed narrative, game design, etc from the ending of Mass Effect 3, and use these in an evidence based argument that demonstrates that the ending is bad according to our non-arbitrary conventions of what makes a bad narrative.
Are there things that are worse than the ME3 ending? Certainly. It is not simply lumped into a category of things that have the property "badness."
There is no only bad / only good dichotomy.
The lack of this dichotomy does not make the continuum of good to bad "subjective," especially if you are using an evidence based argument to explain why one things falls on one point of the continuum, and the next thing falls on a separate point.
It's interesting, in the past few months, there's been a bunch of fan edit endings which make more sense and have the same poignancy as the existing mess that shipped in the game. An array of endings, really.erttheking said:
There's even a fan made "Mass Effect Happy Ending Mod" for PC. It's cheese, and it still doesn't really make sense, in my opinion: I don't really buy any ending where Shepard gets evacuated from the citadel as good, but it's certainly better than the star child ending, namely because in the mod the story Bioware had been telling for 2.9 games doesn't explode in a Hudson/Walters masturbatory shit storm of contrivances and inconsistencies.
Welcome to the club! Far Cry 3 is the first game it looks like I'm actually going to finish since then. I haven't been back to Mass Effect since april, and like I stated before in the thread, I was like, one of those ME nuts that got every piece of DLC for ME1 and ME2, and had a dozen save files ready for ME3 when it came out.LostGryphon said:
Sentiment isn't just you or me, saw this a few times in this thread.
I actually felt a kind of smug satisfaction at seeing what happened with ME3. I was disillusioned as fuck after the pissed-on potential people refer to as Mass Effect 2, and I was honestly saying that it was only a matter of time before Bioware did something so stupid that nobody at all could deny it. While Mass Effect 3 wasn't exactly it, it came surprisingly close given the time passed between Bioware's first "bad rpg"/ME2 and it's release. I still haven't bought it, and probably never will.
I still stand by my statement, though, that Bioware is going to nuke themselves in the foot with some stupid decision, refuse to admit they were wrong, and have EA quietly liquidate them out of existence. Better fate than they deserve, if you ask me.
I still stand by my statement, though, that Bioware is going to nuke themselves in the foot with some stupid decision, refuse to admit they were wrong, and have EA quietly liquidate them out of existence. Better fate than they deserve, if you ask me.
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).Uszi said:
Not what I was arguing; if you look back at previous posts, I believe I have outlined my stance fairly clearly. In this same post, I have outlined my stance fairly clearly.
Interesting. I agree with you on all points.Uszi said:
I just recently finished Far Cry 3, actually. I forgot to mention that it was the first game I could bring myself to finish in months. Part of me wants to go back and replay ME1 and ME2, but it's just difficult.
After all is said and done ME3 wasn't the best ending to the series that there could of been, but it wasn't the worst either. The extended cut makes it better, if they released it with the extended cut endings there would of been much less of a backlash than there is and was. But hindsight is 20/20 and after playing it with all of the DLC that was released its a fun game with good voice acting and a nice story. The fact bioware took time to put out a free extended cut is good enough to repair their reputation in my eyes. I just hope Dragon Age 3 is good enough to redeem them in the eyes of everyone else.
Also vocal minority and all that jazz.
Also vocal minority and all that jazz.
What I never understood about the crucible, is how its found with no real back story just wow weapon lets build it. If we need a magical Fuck you weapon, why not of tried something different, why not try to get to dark space to see what they(reapers) were hiding and finding a weapon that the first race built. Built too destroy anything in its wake but it draws its power from the planets it is used on, destroying them in the process, better than some space child bullshit. Plus it ties in the derelict reaper from ME2 explaining what killed it. You could make it out to be so powerful by explaining that that reaper was caught just slightly by the blast and that a full on shot would of vaporised the reaper turning him into space dust.
For disclosure, i would say that "art" is the product of all the pieces in a story that work together in harmony to elevate it to something greater than itself. That is why it bafles me when people say Bioshock is art when that is t he game that coined the term "Ludonarrative Dissonance", for when Gameplay and Story collide.Frission said:
Maybe you could elaborate more on what is missing in my argument?
Also, while we are at it, i think we should distance ourselves a bit (everyone on the thread) and watch a movie example that its both simultaneusly bad and good, just so we can have another perspective to work with when dealing with ME3:
Before i read that (i have to yet to fully digest everything that AWTR.com has to offer after the "This Is Not A Pipe" article and more) let me tell you that saying that it was made by a "well respected film theorist" doesnt add points to its credibility. I have seen "well respected" people fucking up SPECTACULARY (see, Film Critic Hulk and Movie Bob) regarding the ME3 controversy or when researching their points.BreakfastMan said:
But i will eventually read it.
Just think for a moment what you and those people are saying. How can it be "secretly" a Dada masterpiece? all stories, even in oral tradition, used repetition to get their point across, so if the work WANTED to be a Dada piece then we would have already noticed due to the sheer ammount of clues and subtext. Sort off like how Metroid Other M is a sexism masterpiece that portraits how a platonic ideal of sexism would be more than one time (and not with just Adam)
Its basic storytelling to make your message CLEAR, and would be a disservise for the author if the audience doesnt understand its message. So its either badly written or that wasnt the intention.
.... You do realize that most things START as an hypothesis and then goes on UNTIL proven wrong, right? so what is stopping you?
What does this even mean? Seriously, what does a scientific hypothesis (something that can be proven or disproven) have to do with arguing over what hypothetically might have been (something that cannot be proven or disproven)?DioWallachia said:
Also:
I love how "fucking up SPECTACULARY" equals "does not agree with me" in your eyes.
Don't forget, you still call the Normandy down if EDI is the injured squad mate.Devoneaux said:
Edi even tells you, "Hey, I'm the Normandy. This is just, like, a disposable body I inhabit. It's cool."
And Shepard is like, "Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp."
Derp.
pandorum said:
The derelict reaper was supposedly killed by a super weapon that damaged Klendagon. [http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Klendagon]
This, of course, would have made a lot of sense if the Crucible was a super powerful mass accelerator capable of blasting reapers out of the sky. The way it's writen, however, the Derelict Reaper and the Klendagon mass accellerator are unfired Chekhov's guns. This is what I'm talking about when I say we can use objective examples of how lazy and shitty the ending to ME3 was.
If you think i am biased towards ME3 or Movie Bob then watch its Heavens To Metroid video and tell me with a straight face that he did his research and that he DIDNT use strawmen to win its arguments. I will waitBreakfastMan said:
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
This isnt much of a disagreement because there are NO points to disagree with. He wasnt even trying.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Uszi said:
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.
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.