|
Neruz posted:If you do not want your thing to be hosed it should not be visibly on fire from space, okay? Are... are you saying Palaven was asking for it?! RAPE CULTURE!!!!
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Are... are you saying Palaven was asking for it?! RAPE CULTURE!!!! I have never wanted to both laugh and jam a corkscrew into my brain at the same time before...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think prescriptivist trilogy structure might have a place, and that place might be AAA space opera productions that are so consciously modeled as a love letter to classic 60s and 70s space opera that it debuted with non optional film grain. Psion posted:hey now, you could toggle it off. Of course when you did, you got to see just how ... awkward ME1 faces were. They look really plastic. Red Bones posted:You can argue it's not very good criticism if they don't back up their points with evidence or aren't specific enough ("bad writing", for example), but even with that you have to remember that this topic has been argued to death already. Is there much point in writing another exhaustive criticism of this game? You might as well just link one of the many available online.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I don't think many people would argue it doesn't count as part of the trilogy, considering a lot of the criticisms come from it being very bad at being the third part of the trilogy. You seem to be confusing criticism with outright dismissal here. How can it be bad at being the third part of the trilogy? It either is or isn't the third part of the trilogy. Since it's called "Mass Effect 3", I feel confident saying that it is. But this is what I mean. People build up a preconception of how things will end, find out ME3 is different to that, and suddenly ME3 is "bad at being part of the trilogy". It can't be. If you want to decide what the trilogy is 'all about', you need to take into account what ME3 says, otherwise you're not talking about the trilogy - you're talking about what you've imagined the trilogy should be, which I think is of limited interest to everybody but yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Mass Effect is a horror story. The universe is filled with terrifying inhuman monsters, including hives of xenocidal insect-beasts, collectives of mysterious silent killer robots with flashlight heads, and of course the entire galaxy is the plaything of the Reapers, the impossibly-old mechanical Cthulhu monsters from beyond the edge of the galaxy. Mass effect technology means that entire planets are at risk of absolute annihilation from near-FTL asteroid impact, and that power is in the hands of anyone with a big enough rocket engine. Unfortunately Bioware really dropped the ball on this one; parts of the game are written for laughs or tears, not anguished dread. These sections are just awful at being Mass Effect, and really drag the rest of the game down. Mass Effect is a hard science-fiction story. The game is filled with detailed scientific explanations, including a description of 'element zero', a realistic account of space warfare with mass accelerators over astronomical distances, and of course everything is based on mass effect fields, which alter the mass of selected objects and enable such incredibly advanced alien technology. It even comes with an in-game Codex to act as a combination encyclopedia-and-technical-manual while you play. Unfortunately Bioware really dropped the ball on this one; parts of the game are written to ignore these setting facts in order to create excitement or visual spectacle. These sections are just awful at being Mass Effect, and really drag the rest of the game down. Mass Effect is a three-act space opera...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Holy poo poo you are upset about people feeling that a middle part of the story didn't drive the plot forward. They named it Mass Effect 2. It's not a crime in the context of critiquing Mass Effect 3 to comment that as a finale it started in a bad place to begin with when all the set up the previous title left it with was "Yup, the Reapers are still coming".
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
BioMe posted:Holy poo poo you are upset about people feeling that a middle part of the story didn't drive the plot forward. Hey, give ME2 all the credit it deserves; it starts ME3 off with "Yup, the Reapers are stil coming and the Normandy got bigger."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
I don't know, I mean, I haven't finished ME2 or played ME3 yet, but ME2 seems decently engaging on its own. For a Bioware game, that is - one can't set his expectations too high. I think they realized that the Reaper storyline is pretty weak and tried to expand it in different ways in what I've seen of both ME2 and this. Whether they succeeded or failed is obviously up to discussion, but I wouldn't fault ME2 for exploring a different aspect of the plot as opposed to simply continuing/tying up the previous one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
"ME2 works really well stand-alone" and "ME2 poo poo the bed for the overarching story" aren't mutually exclusive or each other's counterpoints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Mass Effect is a horror story. The universe is filled with terrifying inhuman monsters, including hives of xenocidal insect-beasts, collectives of mysterious silent killer robots with flashlight heads, and of course the entire galaxy is the plaything of the Reapers, the impossibly-old mechanical Cthulhu monsters from beyond the edge of the galaxy. Mass effect technology means that entire planets are at risk of absolute annihilation from near-FTL asteroid impact, and that power is in the hands of anyone with a big enough rocket engine. Unfortunately Bioware really dropped the ball on this one; parts of the game are written for laughs or tears, not anguished dread. These sections are just awful at being Mass Effect, and really drag the rest of the game down. Nice effort, but genre isn't structure. I don't think anyone has criticized Mass Effect for not being a space opera. Witness the lack of people complaining about the elements of body horror or hard scifi that exist in the games. They do criticize it for being a space opera with a meandering second act and an unsatisfying conclusion. I don't think anyone would be mad had they decided to make Mass Effect a 5 act story either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:I don't know, I mean, I haven't finished ME2 or played ME3 yet, but ME2 seems decently engaging on its own. For a Bioware game, that is - one can't set his expectations too high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Eh, people bring up Empire so much it's become a bit warped. Empire sets up Jedi by throwing the Rebels out on their asses, upping the personal stakes for Luke, developing Vader as a character, introducing the Emperor as the big villain. The main conflict may fade into the background but it's only because the focus is on the foreground characters, not because the background tableau has hosed off to check out the catering table. Critically Empire sets up a desperate scenario for the heroes, even if it largely happens in the background. While they succeed in avoiding total disaster, the film ends with the Rebel fleet out on their asses and Han missing. Only Luke really comes out as a winner and the importance of his growth in Empire won't be apparent until Jedi. It's funny but people don't seem to notice in Star Wars that both sequels are basically recapitulations of the first act. In Hope the heroes try to stop the Empire from destroying the rebel base, confront Vader, and succeed. In Empire they do the same thing but fail at both of them and most of the film is dealing with the fallout from those failures across two confrontations. In Jedi they go and do the same thing again with a bit of a twist in that the rebels have a shot at ending the whole thing this time, and succeed. It's more complicated than that because previous failures set up Luke to grow and try something new this time and Star Wars is a good story, but it really is a similar plot each time with a win, lose, win outcome. Shepard, in contrast, never actually fails. ME3 consciously recapitulates a lot of ME, especially in the ending. You're even looking for Prothean artifacts for most of the game. But has Shepard changed much? Is what he went through in ME2 even very relevant to the plot of one and three? The agonizing boredom of the conflict with the vermire survivor suggests otherwise. I'm not saying he must recapitulate the first act and fail in the second act but it's worth a thought. I mean, on a purely structural basis, Shepard's goal is to prevent the arrival of the Reapers, and ME3 seems to have trouble juggling a proper opening and the arrival of the Reapers, which can't feasibly be pushed deeper into ME3. A failure for Shepard at the end of ME2, a failure to stop the Reapers from returning, would at least dovetail with some structural convenience for ME3. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:For a Bioware game, that is - one can't set his expectations too high. So when is the retroactive goon backlash on Bioware expected to hit the point where Baldur's Gate II is the Worst Game Ever, and Baldur's Gate is Literally Hitler?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
On a totally different topic, I'm a little confused by the references to the incident with the Batarian relay. Was the plan to let the player decide the events which the vast majority of players didn't see? When I was playing the game, I was surprised that such a major event had happened off-screen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
BioMe posted:Holy poo poo you are upset about people feeling that a middle part of the story didn't drive the plot forward. It's frustrating because people get so close and then go off in totally the wrong direction. They get that the Reaper War isn't at the forefront in ME3 or ME2 or arguably even ME1, but instead of asking "what is at the forefront, and why?" and getting to some really cool concepts, they say "Bioware made a mistake, they don't know how to write a trilogy". Like quote:Shepard, in contrast, never actually fails. ME3 consciously recapitulates a lot of ME, especially in the ending. But has Shepard changed much? I'm not saying he must fail in the second act but it's worth a thought. this is a really important point. Shepard doesn't change much across the series - maybe in ME1, yes, but there's not the same learning point in ME2. Who does change? (Liara, and Garrus, and Wrex and everyone else who travels with Shepard.) Why? (Because Shepard is an agent of change more than the subject of it.) Why? (Because the ending.) What isn't relevant is "ME2 should have had some kind of failure so that the three-act-plot would map correctly to the trilogy". Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Veib posted:So when is the retroactive goon backlash on Bioware expected to hit the point where Baldur's Gate II is the Worst Game Ever, and Baldur's Gate is Literally Hitler? Hopefully never, Bioware started using the same stock set of characters with KOTOR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:How can it be bad at being the third part of the trilogy? It either is or isn't the third part of the trilogy. Since it's called "Mass Effect 3", I feel confident saying that it is. To be honest, I don't think you can necessarily approach it from that angle unless you're willing to allow someone to go away and write Die Hard 3 as from the pen of Samuel Beckett. What, you were expecting explosions in this movie? That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I think you're right to say that a lot of what's in question is to do with what defines the Mass Effect trilogy in the first place. Mass Effect 2, though, deliberately left a lot of things open with the intention that there would always be a Mass Effect 3, and that Mass Effect 3 would then resolve all of these outstanding elements. By way of analogy, if the third Star Wars movie has to jump ten yards to the right of where the second film left off, that's not so much an artistic decision as it is just shoddy writing, since you always knew you were making a third movie and promoted it as such. I don't think that Mass Effect makes real pretentions towards being a horror game or to telling a hard-sci plot. I was going to elaborate on this earlier, but if there's one thing I'd say defined the first two games, I'd say that they're mystery games. Both plots are driven by this idea of having an unfolding mystery that only you, Commander Shepard, are able and willing to go and investigate, and then only at the end are you put in a position where you've discovered the secret and have to go stop A Bad Thing Happening. In many ways, the plot structure of ME2 is therefore almost identical to ME1. The problem is that they then have to actually resolve the overriding issue with the Reapers, and it falls down hard. The idea of having a secret Prothean weapon is not actually a bad one, but that should be the game. Make that the mystery and have Shepard go chase it while the war happens in the background. Instead, it's basically shouted at you directly after the tutorial, and then becomes a number that goes up offscreen while the player goes through something akin to a James Vega-simulator, where you meet a bunch of space babies and they tell you to go on errands for them. I don't think you particularly need to introduce the plot elements for ME3 as part of ME2, but you do need to have a consistent narrative flow between them. In hindsight, it would probably make a lot more sense for there to be a 5-10 year gap between ME2 and ME3 and for Arrival to be a game on its own that actually sets the scene for the final game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Eh, people bring up Empire so much it's become a bit warped. Empire sets up Jedi by throwing the Rebels out on their asses, upping the personal stakes for Luke, developing Vader as a character, introducing the Emperor as the big villain. The main conflict may fade into the background but it's only because the focus is on the foreground characters, not because the background tableau has hosed off to check out the catering table. It's a different matter for Luke, Han, Leia, and even Vader. ESB sets up the individual relationships and conflicts that must and ultimately do play out in RotJ. We see the same occur, again and again, throughout ME3 (e.g. Shepard vs. TIM, EDI vs. Joker and Cerberus, Mordin vs. the krogan, Tali vs. Legion). quote:It's funny but people don't seem to notice in Star Wars that both sequels are basically recapitulations of the first act. In Hope the heroes try to stop the Empire from destroying the rebel base, confront Vader, and succeed. In Empire they do the same thing but fail at both of them and most of the film is dealing with the fallout from those failures across two confrontations. In Jedi they go and do the same thing again with a bit of a twist in that the rebels have a shot at ending the whole thing this time, and succeed. It's more complicated than that because previous failures set up Luke to grow and try something new this time and Star Wars is a good story, but it really is a similar plot each time with a win, lose, win outcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:On a totally different topic, I'm a little confused by the references to the incident with the Batarian relay. Was the plan to let the player decide the events which the vast majority of players didn't see? It's part of the Arrival DLC for ME2, which basically means that 90% of people won't have played it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:I don't think that Mass Effect makes real pretentions towards being a horror game or to telling a hard-sci plot The point of that post was to illustrate how you can be entirely factually correct in an analysis, but miss the point because you're stuck clinging to a framework which you already know to be inaccurate. The theoretical poster knows that Mass Effect isn't a horror game, but can't move past that framework to find out what it is instead. Another theoretical poster could know that Mass Effect isn't about the Reaper invasion or the Crucible superweapon, but can't move past that framework to find out what it is about instead... e: quote:That's really beside the point, I feel. Not everything is about Shepard, and my point about ESB with respect to ME2 is that the interaction between the characters in both is more important to the third act than what happens between or to the major sides to the galactic conflict. Yes! Exactly!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
This topic is something I'd like to talk about in a later video. I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't post, but it'd be nice to have something for later. Don't feel like you won't get a chance to talk about this at a later date. e: Go ahead and post now too, I don't mind. Just letting you all know my plans. Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:The point of that post was to illustrate how you can be entirely factually correct in an analysis, but miss the point because you're stuck clinging to a framework which you already know to be inaccurate. The theoretical poster knows that Mass Effect isn't a horror game, but can't move past that framework to find out what it is instead. Another theoretical poster could know that Mass Effect isn't about the Reaper invasion or the Crucible superweapon, but can't move past that framework to find out what it is about instead... This is a fundamentally irritating way to steer an argument: "You just don't understand Mass Effect on the level that I do!" I mean the interpersonal relationships are one thing but they don't salvage a broken overarching narrative which was essentially not advanced for an entire game. You can wax poetic on how mass effect 3 is really about interpersonal relationships (or whatever) but the game was sold on a galaxy at war and it didn't really resolve that in a way that fit with the rest of the text.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I feel like I know where you are going with this whole overarching theme or whatever and what kind of story Bioware was trying to tell in ME3. But if I''m right then I strongly disagree with both you and Bioware and found the story and ending to this game kind of offensive and lovely. It just turns me off from the entire trilogy and just makes me say "gently caress this game." edit: But this is just if this whole thing is about Green is my favorite color and if you understood the story they were trying to tell in ME3 it'd be your favorite color too. If you like Blue or (god forbid) Red then you weren't paying attention. You have terrible taste and you messed everything up for everyone in the galaxy forever. SgtSteel91 fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
I really do have a response and I'd like to discuss it further, but I really want to save it for the Tuchanka bomb mission. Not ignoring you or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:You can wax poetic on how mass effect 3 is really about interpersonal relationships (or whatever) but the game was sold on a galaxy at war and it didn't really resolve that in a way that fit with the rest of the text. I wouldn't take how something as marketed into consideration when analyzing it, as marketing divisions have one singular goal: sell the product. They're kind of notorious for telling just enough of the truth to fit within the law while distorting the truth to sell as muc product as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:It's part of the Arrival DLC for ME2, which basically means that 90% of people won't have played it. I'm aware of that; it still feels like a weird decision. It would work to open a new story, but with a character we've spent 40 hours inhabiting it's jarring for him to be asked a question which I, the player, don't know anything about. If it was about something I reasonably would not have experienced like Shepard's life before the events of Mass Effect it would be one thing, but the event in question is one that I would assume the player would be familiar with. And indeed, it is something within the scope of player experience. Not only would I expect to have been present for those events, my expectation is correct. So they're not even intentionally throwing me for a loop. They're doing it accidentally. The player is justifiably surprised and a bit miffed that he/she is being blindsided. It may have been part of why they threw out the trial. quote:That's really beside the point, I feel. Not everything is about Shepard, and my point about ESB with respect to ME2 is that the interaction between the characters in both is more important to the third act than what happens between or to the major sides to the galactic conflict. I'm having a hard time seeing how any character interactions from ME2 have an impact on ME3. Could you enumerate them for me? The lack of true branching story is a serious technical limitation, but you can't blame them any more than you could blame Cristopher Nolan for Heath Ledger's death. There are just real-world limitations to continuity in certain mediums. So I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, I just don't recall any character interactions that really matter to the plot. Sure it would be a bummer if a favorite character were to die! That brings up another question: did anything in ME2 matter for ME3's plot? And I don't just mean the little choices the player is allowed to make, I mean in terms of the script that's 100% in Bioware's hands. ME had some really plot-basic stuff like Shepard becoming aware of the Reapers that arguably couldn't be excised. If ME2 just was never made, how much of an impact would it have on ME3?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:I wouldn't take how something as marketed into consideration when analyzing it, as marketing divisions have one singular goal: sell the product. They're kind of notorious for telling just enough of the truth to fit within the law while distorting the truth to sell as muc product as possible. On the other hand it's pretty ridiculous to say you aren't supposed to go in with expectations into a direct sequel, of a story that ended with a sequel hook. There is a continuous story and build-up of expectations and it's a completely valid angle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:But this is just if this whole thing is about Green is my favorite color and if you understood the story they were trying to tell in ME3 it'd be your favorite color too. If you like Blue or (god forbid) Red then you weren't paying attention. You have terrible taste and you messed everything up for everyone in the galaxy forever. There are people who think that Green is the wrong choice, I question whether these people actually listened to any of the plot in the entire series at all. Green is so ovbiously the better colour that it was a complete and total no brainer for me. It's like "I can fix the problem, or I can not do that" is there really a choice there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm having a hard time seeing how any character interactions from ME2 have an impact on ME3. Could you enumerate them for me? That being said, a few things spring to mind in particular (spoilered just in case): - Mordin's conversations with Shepard, and his mission on Tuchanka, set up his shot at redemption in ME3; - Joker's unshackling EDI permits EDI to assert herself as a free sentient being, allowing her to voluntarily distance herself from Cerberus and the Reapers as also-synthetic beings, and enabling her to further develop relationships with organic beings (not just Joker); - through Legion, Tali gains a new perspective on the geth that can be decisive for the outcome of the second geth-quarian war in ME3; - the events of ME2 cause Jack to, essentially, change from a rebellious adolescent into a responsible parent; - through her continued pursuit of the Shadow Broker, Liara also definitively grows up and gains independence from Shepard, no longer requiring their help to be saved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:
Bah, I made them superior. They'll learn to love their new cyborg bodies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
The obvious question about Arrival and the trial is; why in the blue holy gently caress was Arrival (or at least a somewhat condensed version of it) not the intro to ME3? Trigger Warning: "What ME3 should have been" brand arguments It sets up the driving force of the plot; holy poo poo guys, the Reapers are here right now. You put your gameplay tutorials in there while Sheperd's poking around investigating, and then bam, you gotta blow up the Alpha Relay and you can't do it without killing a few hundred thousand batarians - this serves as your intro to the new Paragon/Renegade system that prioritizes attitude and outlook over the actual decision, because the decision is non-negotiable. And then, Sheperd gets his rear end hauled to Earth and is put on trial - and bureaucracy can account for the nice two-year timeskip before that happens (this drives home the game's blunt anti-politics message and serves as a demonstration of what Sheperd's up against; he bought the galaxy two years and they imprisoned him and wasted it all). Now the player has to justify it all in retrospect, and settle properly into a "united we stand" or "survive at any cost" mindset. And then the Reapers show up, and you escape on the Normandy without going through the bullshit skyscraper segment because we'll already have had our sweeping space-architecture-porn establishing shots before the trial. From here it's onto Mars and ME3 as normal, with nothing else changed except now we've had an effective introduction that sets the tone for the rest of the game, rather than the empty, contextless husk of an intro we actually got. As a nice bonus, this is pretty much an echo/reversal of the start of ME1, in which Sheperd is wrapped up in the murder of Nihlus by Saren, and must answer for this while also gathering evidence against Saren. I'd really like to know definitively what was going on with BioWare's writing staff during the production of ME3 (and possibly as early as the Arrival DLC). Between the trial segment getting thrown out and the original draft of the ending, I get the impression that huge chunks of ME3 that had actually been planned for somewhat since ME2 were thrown out and hastily replaced by the new lead writers because... of reasons. Of course, the more cynical part of me detects the hand of EA in gutting a key part of ME3's introduction and releasing it as DLC for ME2, but that's just speculation. I know it's pretty well established that the introduction was originally going to be the trial and that that was thrown out, but is there any evidence that Arrival was originally a part of ME3, or was it always going to be a DLC?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Neruz posted:There are people who think that Green is the wrong choice, I question whether these people actually listened to any of the plot in the entire series at all. Green is so ovbiously the better colour that it was a complete and total no brainer for me. Well I suppose you could argue "the problem" was always a self-fulfilling prophecy, and on a thematic level it might be a lot more hollow to solve the villain's dilemma if you feel like you've already proved it didn't really exist in the first place. I think the one proper theme ME actually does do well is dealing with the question of whether it's right to preemptively destroy life if it's a fundamental threat to you in the future. And if you do the paragon route properly you pretty much prove that's the wrong approach, or at least not the only possible solution. In which case taking the same big question and making it disappear with a big scifi magic wand undermines the player's efforts a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
There isn't a lot of depth to talk about when it comes to ME2 and the character interactions/development, not because nothing happens but because the game goes out of it's way to tell you what's going on: - Shepard is a symbol and leader that galvanizes people to give their best. - Only by finding a diverse team of specialists and encouraging their personal growth with/around Shepard can some menacingly large threat be dealt with. The Illusive Man explicitly says these things multiple times. It's also the direct structure of ME1, and the structure of ME3 in large scale. You can complain about the execution of that structure and the articulation of those concepts, and I certainly do, but ME2 is about making explicit to the player what Shepard's role in the galaxy is. It does that in pretty much the only way it can, which is to show a series of redemption stories and then use the ending to stress the fact that Shepard ultimately needed those newly-strengthened characters to succeed. If their story progression wasn't explored they perish, and if you didn't help enough of them you don't do very well. Most of the individual characters aren't important it's true, but the lesson the player learns from the basic conceit of helping them move on from their past and forward to live is, and ME3 has little side beats to reinforce that. In ME3 your main story beats are wrapped around how Shepard helps each original alien teammate from ME1, who were all dead-end nobodies in the first game, to become a hero for their race; they help ease historic conflicts and/or help bring each race together to the final conflict. With one exception, who should be pretty easy to think of given the results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
I think this thread illustrates pretty well why ME3 is a bad game. Just look at all the differing ways people are bashing it and others trying to protect it. "It's misunderstood" is not a valid argument here. For some art it works. Some art is supposed to make people talk. ME3 is not that sort of art. It's a game that people are supposed to play for fun. All this stuff that gets mixed in takes away from the fun. ME1 and ME2 are good games. ME1 gets criticism because of its poorly implemented RPG aspects. In spite of this, most people still think it is a great game because when you finish the game you are satisfied. ME2 doesn't get as much criticism because it is a much smoother experience and once again, when you finish the game you feel satisfied. Very few fans of the series felt satisfied with ME3 when they finished. It upset a lot of people. ME3 is not a good game. I think this is the crucial point. When you take the game apart there is a lot that is good and also a lot that is bad and even more that it somewhere in between. Focusing on the good parts is great and is why people will replay even though they see it as a bad game. I have to admit, I feel a little bad for the OP. He is doing a nice LP which takes a lot of time and effort and is getting poo poo on. On the other hand, he said he was going to show how this is a good game and hasn't done anything of the sort. In fact, he has shown off more bad than good. And he killed Wrex. Killing off one of the most popular characters in the series and not showing some of his most powerful scenes is an interesting choice if one wants to show off the good of a game. I get the idea of saying, hey check out this alternate stuff that most people don't see. On the other hand...Wrex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
We're like five updates in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:We're like five updates in. You read the ME3 Spoilers thread. It is only going to get worse from here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
I've estimated about 30 videos in total for this playthrough. At the current rate, that's... what, twelve more weeks to finish? I've got three more months of husbanding this thread through shitposts, quote wars and meltdowns - and that's just my posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:We're like five updates in. I'm just curious to see the shitstorm after the finale. More so because I want to see how you say it is a good way to end the game. I'm patient. And again, I am enjoying your videos, even if I disagree with your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
That's cool. Honestly I'm not expecting people to turn around and love ME3 - I can't say that I do - but I hope they'll understand more about why certain choices were made and what those choices mean, even if they still think "nah, not what I would have done" - again, I think that about a lot of ME3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Not having Wrex around is one thing, it's the fact that Mordin isn't with us that is truly depressing  even though his replacement does have some entertaining dialogue
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 21:44
|
|
