One Last look at Mass Effect 3.

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
Uszi said:
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

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

DioWallachia said:
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

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Uszi said:
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?
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

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

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
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/long:eek:n-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 :D
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 :D

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

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

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

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

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Machine Man 1992 said:
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

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
Zhukov said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
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

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
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.
 

DioWallachia

New member
Sep 9, 2011
1,546
0
0
Hmmm.... people got lazy apparently. They had all the tools needed to work this out and still dont continued to post. Back to work i guess.

Machine Man 1992 said:
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.
NEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE......

BreakfastMan said:
DioWallachia said:
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?
I see what you did there.

Since you already though before that i am biased instead of a neutral, you think i carefully selected good arguments AGAINST the ending and picked up the worst for the defenders, right?

You do realize that i cant answer that question right? i mean, i can tell you at the botton of my hearth that most defenses are the typical: "OMG YOU SO WRONG!! BIOWARE CANT DO NO WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE SPESHUM!" (<< that is Twilight fan grammar for "special") or they just pull the "Its art because it has tons of emotion. So dont complaing *****" without adding much to the converzation. Just like the "In Defense of Bioware" link i have before.

No really, that is all i could find. Some of the very good posts on BSN are STILL just headcannon that doesnt explain why the ending had to be so exiled from the rest of the narrative that was SUPPOSED TO give birth/foreshadow that encounter. They also dont explain why the narrative was broken even before then, like when we see the whole fleet agaisnt the Reapers keep firing in the direction of Earth and missing every shot.........thus hitting Earth with the power of a nuclear bomb that would have destroyed all life even worse than the Reapers.

The solution that escaped your mind was to ask for someone else that isnt "biased" to search for links or arguments that i somehow missed. But of course, since no one else continued the thread, i assume they dont really care about that game they defended so much, so i guess i am the only asshole doing it even if am not a fucking fan of this Michael Bay fanfic.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
I still play the multiplayer. It's probably the only multiplayer that I like. I only play it for the weekend challenges though, free stoof.
 

gyroscopeboy

New member
Nov 27, 2010
601
0
0
I only just got a new xbox (old one broke) and thus ME3, and i can't get past Kai Leng haha..so I have no opinion on the ending yet :p