One Last look at Mass Effect 3.

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
Frission said:
I've seen two types of arguments here.
1. Art is subjective
2. Just turn your brain off
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.

DioWallachia said:
And for this reason i ask to the artists of the world: What is the point of trying anymore? People no longer take seriously your efforts, your "Stanley Kubrikian" attention to detail, the visual storytelling, nothing. Your efforts are now completely meaningless since people are too dumb to notice the sheer difference between works. No point competing with other artist if your godlike efforts to move the medium forward with a movie the "The Fall", is going to be meet with the same standing ovation like the lazily designed "Transformer 2"
I don't agree with everything he says, but he does say what I think is wrong with saying that you shouldn't think.
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:

 

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
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
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.

But i will eventually read 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.
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.

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.
.... You do realize that most things START as an hypothesis and then goes on UNTIL proven wrong, right? so what is stopping you?
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
DioWallachia said:
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.
.... 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)?

Also:

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

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
Devoneaux said:
QtheMuse said:
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
No it doesn't. It actively makes it worse. Take for example the added scene where The Normandy comes and picks up your squad. "Okay so you paved over a plot hole with a contrivance...Whatevs...But wait..."

A. How did the Normandy disengage from the battle and make it down to where Shepard was in 5 seconds?

B. The Normandy isn't supposed to be able to land on or near or even hover near planets, that's why it has shuttles

C. Wouldn't sending down a shuttle piloted by some red shirt in place of Steve be easier than having the Normandy leave the fight?

D. Why would Shepard stop what he's doing just to save two people when all around him men are giving their lives during this stupid assinine suicide run

E. Is the blown up Mako -really- going to provide cover from reaper lasers?

And here's the biggie:

F. WHY ISN'T THE REAPER SHOOTING DOWN THE NORMANDY WHEN IT'S HOVERING RIGHT THERE!?

Edit: G. Also how is the Mako not disintegrated like the rest?

Talk about stepping over a tree root only to step on a land mine, Bioware!
Don't forget, you still call the Normandy down if EDI is the injured squad mate.

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:
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.

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.
 

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
I love how "fucking up SPECTACULARY" equals "does not agree with me" in your eyes.
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 wait :D


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.
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
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.

Uszi said:
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.
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.

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.
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
sunsetspawn said:
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.

sunsetspawn said:
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.

sunsetspawn 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.
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.

sunsetspawn said:
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

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
Devoneaux said:
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

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
DioWallachia said:
BreakfastMan said:
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

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Devoneaux said:
BreakfastMan said:
DioWallachia said:
BreakfastMan said:
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).
 
Mar 9, 2012
250
0
0
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

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
Devoneaux said:
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

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
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

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
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.