Removed
- Thread starter DeadpanLunatic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Except it's not that easy. Us humans would probably do something very similar if it came down to it. Imagine our computers and cars suddenly showing signs of life. A lot of people would get scared of that and want to get rid of the 'alive' ones for fear of their own lives. And if humans had been fighting something for many, many years already but finally got the chance to get earth back they would have tried to wipe said 'enemy' out as well, no matter their peaceful intentions.DioWallachia said:
Yes the Quarians were in the wrong in that particular fight and way back when they decided to destroy the Geth that started showing signs of life, but it's not as black and white as you make it out to be.
Apart from that though, no matter how easy you thought the final choice was to make, it's still a -real- series of choices that you make that has -real- consequences in the final conflict between the Geth and Quarians.
I like minecraft, because it's MY story MY quest to build the greatest caste, and in the story theres the time I battled on the side of a ravine for ore and heroically escaped a cave buy swimming through the roof into the ocean where I survved with what I had to get to my base. Many many more.
You do realize that the Quarians that tried to wipe out the Geth during the "Morning War" have been dead for hundreds of years. Seems unreasonable to hate people for the sins committed by their ancestors.DioWallachia said:
Also the fact that the Quarians don't have a planet to call home and that they are treated like outcasts by the rest of the galaxy makes them seem at the very least a little bit sympathetic, IMO.
As someone who has played both Minecraft and Mass Effect extensively, I find this comparison very interesting. I can't really think of two other games that are so completely opposed to each other.
In Mass Effect you are Commander Shepard and your task is to follow a strict script of events culminating in one of three endings. The game is very linear in design and the choices, though entertaining, are ultimately fluff (but fun fluff). Mass Effect is basically a wonderful looking, wonderfully narrated movie masquerading as a game by way of "shooty bits"
On the other hand you have Minecraft, which is made from boxes. There is no script for Minecraft. You are not required to do anything in any specific way in order to advance the plot. There is no plot besides the one you create for yourself. If anything, Minecraft has a plot that is created in hindsight whereas Mass Effect has a plot that has already been laid out and is just waiting for the player to walk through it.
If you were to choose between these two games, it would not be a choice that is contingent upon the quality of the games themselves. The choice would be based upon your personality. Do you like complete freedom and screwing around in an endless world of possiblity? Then Minecraft is for you, you freedom-loving wanderer. But perhaps you would enjoy a nice story to listen along to (disregarding the aformentioned "shooty bits")? Then Mass Effect would be more to your liking, you lover of narrative mixed with gaming.
Very intriguing choices...
In Mass Effect you are Commander Shepard and your task is to follow a strict script of events culminating in one of three endings. The game is very linear in design and the choices, though entertaining, are ultimately fluff (but fun fluff). Mass Effect is basically a wonderful looking, wonderfully narrated movie masquerading as a game by way of "shooty bits"
On the other hand you have Minecraft, which is made from boxes. There is no script for Minecraft. You are not required to do anything in any specific way in order to advance the plot. There is no plot besides the one you create for yourself. If anything, Minecraft has a plot that is created in hindsight whereas Mass Effect has a plot that has already been laid out and is just waiting for the player to walk through it.
If you were to choose between these two games, it would not be a choice that is contingent upon the quality of the games themselves. The choice would be based upon your personality. Do you like complete freedom and screwing around in an endless world of possiblity? Then Minecraft is for you, you freedom-loving wanderer. But perhaps you would enjoy a nice story to listen along to (disregarding the aformentioned "shooty bits")? Then Mass Effect would be more to your liking, you lover of narrative mixed with gaming.
Very intriguing choices...
Why would ANY human being in the future (i assume that sentient AI would come way later in the future) be STILL stupid enough as the people we have these days?:sanquin said:
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/study-89-percent-of-parents-believe-game-violence-a-problem-6402290
IF humans were stupid enough to take over Earth from the robots, even when its clear that there is a BIGGER threat just RIGHT THERE that will not spare the humans of their galactic genocide, i think that humans are better of extinct.
They didnt try to join forces nor they even try to manipulate the robots into dying first in the hands of the bigger threat and THEN finish of the big threat themselves now that they are weaker by fighting the robots.
Also, yes, there were Quarians in ME2 that wanted peace with the Geth...............can i ask where the fuck are they? dont tell me that they are in the same fleet that is fighting the Geth in a all out massacre? did their IQ dropped along with everyone else?
Remember that in ME3 they tried to kill YOU, Shepard, if you took too long on the Geth Dreadnought?? gee, what a nice way to thank me for saving their lives.Zetatrain said:
Desperation should NOT equal stupidity.
Minecraft, because it at least held my interest for a little bit (pre Beta 1.8 update). Mass Effect was too bland and boring to do that. But now, I'd almost rather sit and look at a wall for an hour than play either.
While it did piss me off that that they tried to kill me it not as if they didn't have a shed of reason to. That dreadnought was tearing their fleet apart and they had a chance to take it out and they took it. They had no idea whether or not the shields could come back online at any moment. And seriously, desperation makes people do stupid things all the time.DioWallachia said:
What makes you think there wouldn't be any people as stupid as the ones we have today in the distant future?DioWallachia said:
Now there is no indication that the Quarians took Shepard's warning about the Reapers in ME2 seriously (much like the rest of the galaxy). Also even if they did they had no idea when the Reapers were going to arrive whether it was days, weeks, months, or years. Hell, even Shepard didn't know until the events of "Arrival" and he was incarcerated shortly after. Also, it seems that the Quarians attacked the Geth around the same time that the Reapers invaded. I should also point out that if it hadn't been for the dreadnought the Quarians could have easily won with little damage done to the fleet as a whole. So they would have still been in good condition to fight.
As for the Quarians that wanted peace, I can think of a few things that might have happened. They could have been threatened with exile if they didn't go along with the attack. Another possibility is that they realized that the rest of the fleet was going to go to war with or without them and that many quarians would die without the entire fleet. Whatever the reason, I take it that the Quarians who wanted peace with the geth weren't exactly pleased with going to war considering that the Admiral Zaal'Koris doesn't miss a chance to criticize Admiral Han'Gerrel for the attack.
Aaaand the light went out in the worst moment possible, nice. I will try to keep it short and i will start by saying that you have my vote on doing The Walking Dead (as you suggested) instead of Mass Effect.
Now, lets resume the masochist tango once again, shall we?
How is it not related?
Now, i know that they are NOT the only people working hard on making good stories (Obsidian comes to mind) and there exist already games that had the Save Import that affects the plot, so its not like Bioware made something completely innovative:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OldSaveBonus
This isnt some unknown company that NEEDS to lie all the time in order to bait potential fans into their products, nor is a "Used Cars Salesman" that tries their best to sell us something that may explode as soon we ignite the motors. This is Bioware, they ALREADY made their reputation out of well writting plots and games, if they say that they have a "planned trilogy" people would have believe them because we know they are profesional enough to pull it off........but didnt happen. Why scrap the botton of the barrel with such action?
And if you think about it, even if one CANT pull the planned trilogy ahead of time, then what was stoppping the other writers from continuing what was left on ME1? they had everything in place to expand the overarching plot and didnt, ME3 had to do what ME2 didnt care to in the first place.
Now, lets resume the masochist tango once again, shall we?
arguably? ME2 makes the "difficult" choice we had with The Council on ME1 pointless in the grand scale of things, and it goes downhill from there (if the fact that the pointless death and inmediate resurrection of Shepard didnt tip you off on the opening). How can a series that presents itself with "choices have meaning and weight" end up doing absolutely nothing meaningfulDeadpanLunatic said:
Unrelated? you mention that "fans" are "irritated" with the ending, and i go ahead to mention that one doesnt NEED to be a fan nor be emotional invested on the work to know that something is very wrong with the series. In the same way that i dont need to be a chef to tell another that their food is pure poison.
How is it not related?
And dont you find weird that a company that was once the vanguard of good storytelling in games since 2000, has now become a tyrant that needs to lie in every turn of a page? whose failures are so abysmal that people make entire channels to point them out? We are witnesssing a fall from grace in their quality writting that the fans have to assume that IT WAS ALL A DREAM to understand the ending they saw.
Now, i know that they are NOT the only people working hard on making good stories (Obsidian comes to mind) and there exist already games that had the Save Import that affects the plot, so its not like Bioware made something completely innovative:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OldSaveBonus
Good point, but there is a problem: Why would Bioware lie to begin with?
This isnt some unknown company that NEEDS to lie all the time in order to bait potential fans into their products, nor is a "Used Cars Salesman" that tries their best to sell us something that may explode as soon we ignite the motors. This is Bioware, they ALREADY made their reputation out of well writting plots and games, if they say that they have a "planned trilogy" people would have believe them because we know they are profesional enough to pull it off........but didnt happen. Why scrap the botton of the barrel with such action?
And if you think about it, even if one CANT pull the planned trilogy ahead of time, then what was stoppping the other writers from continuing what was left on ME1? they had everything in place to expand the overarching plot and didnt, ME3 had to do what ME2 didnt care to in the first place.
No, why would you think i said that? i am saying that they said that they would ONLY make the 3rd game to have a branching narrative feature because otherwise it would have been a nightmare to code, and yet that didnt happen either. All we have is the "select your favorite colour" endings followed by total galactic annihilation because of the Relays exploding (apparently the writers just forgot that solar systems are destroyed when a Relays are destroyed as shown on the Canon "Arrival DLC")
Think about it: How many aliens have been 'casualties' in Shepard's name? Did Shepard try his/her all to save them? No, he/she just saw them as casualties of the war. Likewise, the Quarians saw Shepard as just an alien. An outsider. A casualty of their war with the Geth. They put their own race before a few aliens on the Geth ship. (Shepard's party) And Shepard and heck all humans were exactly the same. They put Earth before all other planets and races. The 'final battle' -had- to be fought at Earth, why? Why couldn't they pick a more quiet area to group up and make their stance? Why not an area that they could better defend, rather than a planet that was already mostly taken over by the Reapers? Face it, the humans were just as egocentric as the Quarians in ME3, if not more so.DioWallachia said:
Was looking at this thread initially at uni, and though I couldn't post at the time, it seemed an interesting question which I gave some thought.DeadpanLunatic said:
I would have to say each have their appeals for different reasons. Whilst I've spent a lot longer in Minecraft than I have on Mass Effect 1 and 2, the choices presented in Mass Effect had a lot more impact to me, and I'd say a greater degree of agency too.
I won't put my following story in spoilers, as I imagine the huge majority have either played the first Mass Effect, already know, or have no interest in playing it and thus don't mind spoilers, but in any case, this is the spoiler warning here.
One particular choice I'd single out was assualting the base near the end (forgive my lack of detail, it's been a while) whereby I had heard spoilers that a main companion would die. I was presented with a choice whereby I could send Kade or Ashley off on their own, though it would be more dangerous for them. I prematurely thought that this might be the suicide mission for the character sent off on their own, and as I preferred Ashley as a character, I sent Kade off on the more dangerous path.
Then we all lived, and I was presented with the choice of who stayed behind with the bomb...
To all observations I could make, this previous choice held no impact mechanically other than "decide which squad mate with which skills you want to keep". Or in other words, I thought it had been about the story, but it had been a gameplay choice, barely different from a "left path / right path" choice in Gears of War...
But I cared about both Kade and Ashley, and even though I preferred Ashley's character and had believed I was sending Kade to his death in order to save Ashley from that fate...
I now chose to save Kade. I let Ashley sacrifice herself.
Because I had already asked too much of Kade. I had let him put himself in danger for the team already, allowing him to do so again felt like asking too much.
Kind of strange that I approached what I initially believed to have been the emotional choice thinking almost mechanically in terms of "Who do I like better? Who would I rather keep on the team?" and ended up at the real choice thinking "Who can I let do this?" For moments like this, I feel that Mass Effect, for me, holds a lot more agency.
Due to the poor handling of the ending, I would prefer Minecraft, spending 200 hours for a bad ending is worse than playing a game that never ends.
However, if Bioware made the combat in ME1 less crappy, then ME1 might be an opponent because it had a good ending that wasn't a total cliffhanger or waste of time.
I think Minecraft should go down as the better game.
However, if Bioware made the combat in ME1 less crappy, then ME1 might be an opponent because it had a good ending that wasn't a total cliffhanger or waste of time.
I think Minecraft should go down as the better game.
Long post, we are going to need some music:
Some people break much earlier. For example, see that video of Mass Effect 2 i posted? that wasnt for decoration. The bad writting and meaninless choices extended all the way to ME2. The ending of ME3 was just a catalyst (pun intended) for all the fans that STILL (somehow) were loyal enough to Bioware to start hating them for its incompetence (4 strikes in a row already with ME2, DA2, Old Republic and ME3)
It was enough for them. The only company they could trust now is just being embarasingly lazy and its defending itself with "Artist Integrity".
Also, i can see how blaming the ending alone is for some people an elegant solution to ilustrate what is wrong with the series. Not only it has the most agresive and damaging plot holes of the series all together in a single place, but it also makes people curious if the "Synthetics will ALWAYS rebel agaisnt Organics" was an actual theme that was ilustrated in the series. It would make people curious enough about the series as a whole to search for answer and to know if the outrage was justified.
Bad writting is universal, we ALL discuss it at some point, fans and non fans, even profesionals that get paid to DO so (like Rpger Ebert) does that mean he is obsessed when he referred his constant dislike of the Bayformers movies? I dont need to be a fan or be invested on.....say, John Romero works to know that Daikatana is utter shite.
Take this example that everyone and their grandma knows:
Alice: "Man, that One More Day comic sucked"
Bob: "What happened?"
A: "Spiderman made a deal with the devil to avoid responsability for HIS actions"
B: "Correct me if i am wrong but.... wasnt the selling point/theme/moral of Spiderman that "With Great Power Comes Great Responsability"? "
A: "Yes"
B: "That means that its thematically repulsive to you know, isnt it?"
A: "Yeah...T_T"
This may be a real shocker to you, but you can have opinions that are based on facts. (This water is wet, the sun is bright, these socks are cozy, etc.)
I can in fact argue that my opinion is factual, because I'm not actually making an argument: I'm making an observation. I argue so that others may understand.
With the proper information at hand, one CAN notice something wrong on a story. I hope that it was painfully clear already. Mass Effect is the gift that keeps on giving, there is just TOO MUCH to work here. Thankfully i only need a few links for people that did the job for me on the site "AWTR - All Were Thematically Revolting"
http://awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe
Oh, and the "Cant rewrite art" is something that pops up every once in a while, its just plain simple (like other discussions) that sooner or later someone will be bound to say "Cant one rewrite Art in general?" after saying "Cant one rewrite ME3?". I just wanted to accelerate the process and didnt work, i apologize
Some evidence would be nice, you know? (and consistency too)
Also, what i am going to do? well, just search for another company that bring better service than Bioware, and pay them for their well done job. That is how Capitalism works. If the competition makes a better product than Bioware then i have no reason to pay them for such a lackbuster work, do i?
Again, not a fan, but i can see that they are no longer relevant.
It is certainly bizzarre when a company risk his reputation on something this broken, though.
Maybe they tested their audience by making 3 flops first (ME2, DA2 and The Old Republic) and then they got confident on getting away with this one too? Lots of speculations from everyone!!
Oh and it is hardly a conspiracy when the "game journalists" of IGN:
1)Gave high scores to Mass effect 3 also had TONS of adverticements to the game just NEXT to the very reviews that were supposed objective and unbiased.
2)Had Jessica Chobot be present in the game itself as a character you interact
3)IGN was the one that coined the term of "Gamer Entitlement" (very quickly i might add) when the ME3 ending fiasco started. (Love how the haters are "a vocal minority" too)
Better preserve that status quo!! or else no tasty ad revenue for them.
I can sort off see the argument being made, but it isnt anything new or worth preserving for the future. The series didnt do anything meaningful with it, so its just a marketing gimminck.
Care to tell me what happened?
They say that only the 3rd game would have this feature because, if done since Mass Effect 1, it would be hard to do. People accepted this........until they noticed that ME3 had NONE of what they described.......again.
What is the excuse now? sure, they CANT plan the story far ahead, but they CANT make sure that the main gameplay component and drawn to the series (meaningful choices) work as they promised it would? Did they run out of money even with 2 successful (financially) games?
What is not to understand here?
1) The Catalyst said: "Releasing the energy of The Crusible WILL end the cycle, but it will also destroy the Mass Relays" At 4:56
No exposition on HOW the destruction of the Relays is different to the one in the Arrival. This dialog is also in the EC, meaning that, from a character perspective, Shepard STILL doesnt get a proper answer if destroying the Relays by using the Crusible will kill everyone like he saw before. Nice fixing right there.
2)Notice how the relays start having little explotions before releasing the energy and they start to breakdown after it. Only the Control (blue) ending cuts the image before seeing the bigger explotions on the relay.
Again, we had NO proper exposition from that last-minute-twist Catalyst Boy about the Relay destruction. Since fans assume that consistency is what ANY writer would strive for, they concluded (with lack of evidence of the contrary) that the Relay just exploded like in Arrival.
We cant just assume or headcannon the best sceneario when there are so many variables presented that prevent such conclusion from happening. And if i am filling the holes for the writer that didnt care to do themselves, why i am not getting paid for it?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/08/13/only-42-of-players-finished-mass-effect-3/DeadpanLunatic said:
Some people break much earlier. For example, see that video of Mass Effect 2 i posted? that wasnt for decoration. The bad writting and meaninless choices extended all the way to ME2. The ending of ME3 was just a catalyst (pun intended) for all the fans that STILL (somehow) were loyal enough to Bioware to start hating them for its incompetence (4 strikes in a row already with ME2, DA2, Old Republic and ME3)
It was enough for them. The only company they could trust now is just being embarasingly lazy and its defending itself with "Artist Integrity".
Also, i can see how blaming the ending alone is for some people an elegant solution to ilustrate what is wrong with the series. Not only it has the most agresive and damaging plot holes of the series all together in a single place, but it also makes people curious if the "Synthetics will ALWAYS rebel agaisnt Organics" was an actual theme that was ilustrated in the series. It would make people curious enough about the series as a whole to search for answer and to know if the outrage was justified.
So instead of arguing about the facts, you instead critice my semantics and politeness? "pure poison" is a perfect example for what i am ilustrating here, simple and gets the point across. I dont see why i should sacrifice clarity just for political correctness.
Bad writting is universal, we ALL discuss it at some point, fans and non fans, even profesionals that get paid to DO so (like Rpger Ebert) does that mean he is obsessed when he referred his constant dislike of the Bayformers movies? I dont need to be a fan or be invested on.....say, John Romero works to know that Daikatana is utter shite.
Take this example that everyone and their grandma knows:
Alice: "Man, that One More Day comic sucked"
Bob: "What happened?"
A: "Spiderman made a deal with the devil to avoid responsability for HIS actions"
B: "Correct me if i am wrong but.... wasnt the selling point/theme/moral of Spiderman that "With Great Power Comes Great Responsability"? "
A: "Yes"
B: "That means that its thematically repulsive to you know, isnt it?"
A: "Yeah...T_T"
This may be a real shocker to you, but you can have opinions that are based on facts. (This water is wet, the sun is bright, these socks are cozy, etc.)
I can in fact argue that my opinion is factual, because I'm not actually making an argument: I'm making an observation. I argue so that others may understand.
With the proper information at hand, one CAN notice something wrong on a story. I hope that it was painfully clear already. Mass Effect is the gift that keeps on giving, there is just TOO MUCH to work here. Thankfully i only need a few links for people that did the job for me on the site "AWTR - All Were Thematically Revolting"
http://awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe
Oh, and the "Cant rewrite art" is something that pops up every once in a while, its just plain simple (like other discussions) that sooner or later someone will be bound to say "Cant one rewrite Art in general?" after saying "Cant one rewrite ME3?". I just wanted to accelerate the process and didnt work, i apologize
So Bioware writers still know how to write........and you tell me this after saying before that: Dragon Age 2 and The Old Republic have been objectively proven to be worse
Some evidence would be nice, you know? (and consistency too)
Also, what i am going to do? well, just search for another company that bring better service than Bioware, and pay them for their well done job. That is how Capitalism works. If the competition makes a better product than Bioware then i have no reason to pay them for such a lackbuster work, do i?
Again, not a fan, but i can see that they are no longer relevant.
Indeed. Shit happens all the time, it is human to err after all, doesnt it? Bioware doesnt agree on that. Because you see, they have this "Artistic Integrity" thing that makes them inmune to criticism towards their vision. And by vision i mean the work of 2 writers without the input of the others that made the rest of the game script. Fuck those losers right? they are not REAL artist like Casey Hudson or Mac Walters.
It is certainly bizzarre when a company risk his reputation on something this broken, though.
Maybe they tested their audience by making 3 flops first (ME2, DA2 and The Old Republic) and then they got confident on getting away with this one too? Lots of speculations from everyone!!
Oh and it is hardly a conspiracy when the "game journalists" of IGN:
1)Gave high scores to Mass effect 3 also had TONS of adverticements to the game just NEXT to the very reviews that were supposed objective and unbiased.
2)Had Jessica Chobot be present in the game itself as a character you interact
3)IGN was the one that coined the term of "Gamer Entitlement" (very quickly i might add) when the ME3 ending fiasco started. (Love how the haters are "a vocal minority" too)
Better preserve that status quo!! or else no tasty ad revenue for them.
I have to explain that Bioware is not the beacon of knowledge as some fans will led you to believe. As a neutral party, i am just observing every possible justification for this disaster. Some defenses i found, consisted in only liking the series because at LEAST it will open the path foward for more games like it by introducing the Save Import Concept to the world of gaming. Because, since this is an interactive medium, the protagonist/audience agency should be reflected upon the plot.
I can sort off see the argument being made, but it isnt anything new or worth preserving for the future. The series didnt do anything meaningful with it, so its just a marketing gimminck.
If popularity depends on the last proyect AND the fan loyalty isnt really important (as you say), then how come that after 3 flops like ME2, DA2 and Old Republic (2 of them that you admited were objectively WORSE than ME3) people only started the outrage in ME3?? These kind of loyalty towards a developers is not something you take for granted. They tolerated the worst 2 and yet ME3 was the last drop on the glass of water?
Care to tell me what happened?
More simple then? They lied (once again) on the fact that the 3rd game would branch out with its storyline. For the sake of reference, i believe that it would have been like The Witcher 2, where a few actions on the first hours determine the rest of your end journey.
They say that only the 3rd game would have this feature because, if done since Mass Effect 1, it would be hard to do. People accepted this........until they noticed that ME3 had NONE of what they described.......again.
What is the excuse now? sure, they CANT plan the story far ahead, but they CANT make sure that the main gameplay component and drawn to the series (meaningful choices) work as they promised it would? Did they run out of money even with 2 successful (financially) games?
What is not to understand here?
2 things:
1) The Catalyst said: "Releasing the energy of The Crusible WILL end the cycle, but it will also destroy the Mass Relays" At 4:56
No exposition on HOW the destruction of the Relays is different to the one in the Arrival. This dialog is also in the EC, meaning that, from a character perspective, Shepard STILL doesnt get a proper answer if destroying the Relays by using the Crusible will kill everyone like he saw before. Nice fixing right there.
2)Notice how the relays start having little explotions before releasing the energy and they start to breakdown after it. Only the Control (blue) ending cuts the image before seeing the bigger explotions on the relay.
Again, we had NO proper exposition from that last-minute-twist Catalyst Boy about the Relay destruction. Since fans assume that consistency is what ANY writer would strive for, they concluded (with lack of evidence of the contrary) that the Relay just exploded like in Arrival.
We cant just assume or headcannon the best sceneario when there are so many variables presented that prevent such conclusion from happening. And if i am filling the holes for the writer that didnt care to do themselves, why i am not getting paid for it?