| 122 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
4/15/12 12:41:06 PM#81
Amusing because even in the book, Heinlein says he's not saying the military is better just that they have learned to sacrifice for the common good. Heinlein didn't believe himself to be a hawk. Either way no one got the hamfisted BS he was trying to pull in the movie, so Heinlein got the last laugh anyways. |
|
|
4/15/12 1:04:47 PM#82
Nice try with the Hyperbole, but as mentioned there is a difference between Commercial Art and Art, and not enough time has progressed for ME to be considered Art as opposed to Commercial Art. So your Mona Lisa crack is already a no go, as that is indeed Art due to the passed time.. Beethoven, feel free to have someone do a cover version with your midgets. That's one of the nice things of Music. Concepts like covering a song, originally written by someone else, does exist. Frank Sinatra is a good example of this. "Fly me to the Moon"? Originally sung by Kaye Balard in 1954, Frank's version didn't arise until 1964. "Ghost Riders in the Sky"? Original version by Burl Ives in February 1949. Vaughn Monrie (who's version was the best selling one.), March 1949. Elvis Presly? 1970. Johnny Cash? 1979. The Outlaws? 1980. The Blues Brothers, 1998. Spiderbait? 2007. Star Wars prequels. It's been done. Fan based, cuts out all the bits that were just bad, like most of the Jar Jar scenes in Phantom Menace. You might be able to find it on Youtube. As for the Ewoks and Wookie things, you just might find a decent amount of support for that. But then again, you'll have more success if you work on the whole Greedo/Han shot first bit. And I do have to warn you, that Lucas like to wave his Artistic Integrity flag around as well. And he isn't exactly known to listen to his fanbase. (One could argue that he's the poster child for why Artistic Integrity/Vision is sometimes a non-defense.) Indy 4.. Again, you might have a shot at it. Ford didn't particularly like it either. And Spielberg is more open to changes that actually help the story. He originally caved with ET and removed the guns from the Governmental Personel, and changed them to walkytalkies. But even he thought it nuts, and in the most recent re-release due to an anniversary, he restored it to the original version. Still, like I said before, changing a movie is a lot harder than just patching a game. Which brings me to WoW. a) You got two many halfs in your request there. 2 halves make a whole, basic math. So no you can't be a half dragon, half vampire and half werewolf, that would put you at 1.5 and no one is a 1.5 anything. b) Neither Vampires nor Werewolves exist in the WoW setting, and this has been the case since the very first game. Having said that Dreadlords do somewhat resemble Vampires, but they're referred to as Demons, not Undead. And Worgen are somewhat similar to Werewolves, but again, it's not a 1 to 1 match. No additional vulnerability to silver or wolfsbane for instance. So your propisition would be more akin to the ME3 ending, as it doesn't fit with the existing world and its mythos. c) I win button. That's an issue of game balance, which considering its an MMO, has far more relevance than to a single player/co-op game like ME3. So this is like comparing an F-16 to an M1A1. Both military machines, but very very different in ability, useage and required skill set. Lastly for the Aps thing, kinda depends on what the ToS/contracts states if you buy it. If an App maker were to have a bug in its software that fully nuked your phone number listing, then yeah, they should very much fix it. Course they can decide not to do so, and that just means that you'll know not to do business with them in the future. Same goes for Bioware in this situation. They can choose to leave it as is, but then they run the risk that their next game won't be a homerun saleswise. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.. And a lot of folks won't be willing to get shamed for falling for their tactics again. Which reminds me, kindly remove the seatbelts, airbags, rollbars and roof reinforcement from your car. They were only implemented due to the complaint made by Dr. C. Hunter Shelden in 1955, which caused Congress making a law in 1959 to enhance safety standards. And as you're arguing that complaining to have something fixed is wrong, and that people should just accept it, then you should not be making use of these things yourself. |
|
|
4/15/12 1:12:32 PM#83
As for the Ewoks and Wookie things, you just might find a decent amount of support for that. But then again, you'll have more success if you work on the whole Greedo/Han shot first bit. And I do have to warn you, that Lucas like to wave his Artistic Integrity flag around as well. And he isn't exactly known to listen to his fanbase. (One could argue that he's the poster child for why Artistic Integrity/Vision is sometimes a non-defense.)
Which is amusing. If Lucas changes things, its heresy but if the fans call for a change its perfectly alright for Mass Effect. Ahh yes I understand now. Basically I'm the center of the universe, and everyone else is wrong. Yes, yes I can see the light finally... |
|
|
4/15/12 1:48:46 PM#84
Originally posted by GullyFoyle I agree the ending fits what you're trying to do, however the theme didn't fit with the rest of the series. The starkid, the DNA altering space magic, breathing in a vacuum, etc. It wasn't following the same design as the rest of the series. That is my point about the 2001 ending and Starship Troopers, 2001 had a certain style to it, Starship Troopers had another style, one was 'arty' while the other was a gung-ho action movie with spacebugs and lots of guns. Putting a 2001 ending into Starship Troopers would be as jarring to me as the current ending to ME3 in the ME series. The styles are all wrong. Just look at the end of the other two games. ME1: A 'boss' battle against a Reaper husk while outside an Alliance force tries to bring down an actual Reaper and fight off Geth forces. ME2: Another boss battle against a Reaper construct after fighting through a Collector base. ME3: A mind reading Starkid giving 3 choices that leads to DNA altering space magic. You see what I'm getting at here? If it was presented in a different way the ending might have worked, but the current ending is just awful, my first thought upon being woken up by starbrat was, "What the hell is this?!". It went rapidly downhill from there. I picked Starship Troopers because it's basically about travelling through space fighting aliens, with some relationship nonsense going on along with it. It fits in my head, just go with it. |
|
|
4/15/12 2:17:14 PM#85
Like I said, it's easier to fix a game, than it is to fix a movie. Especially one, where the majority seems to actually like the version that was released: Han shot first. (Note, how unlike the Director's Cut to Bladerunner that is, where folks actually prefer the "newer" version. How things fit into the universe makes all the difference. Han being a criminal with a heart of gold, who undergoes a journey of social redemption is far more interesting, than the more goody goody (and I'm saying that as a NG with a rather strong lawful streak) than Lucas is painting him as, in his "corrections".) Anyway, considering the number of sign-ups to the various protest sites, considering how much was raised for charity. Sure as heck, doesn't look like the majority of the people like the current ending of ME3. Matter of fact, there seems to be three groups from my perspective. Those that hate it, those that love it, and the silent majority. With the first group being bigger than the second one, and its size compared to the third one is unclear. A far more appropriate analogy for the current ME3 ruccus, is the death of Sherlock Holmes. That too was fixed by the Author subsequently after fan protest. Sure some folks loved how the death went, and they may very well have been displeased by his resurrection. But if one looks at the salesnumbers on the latter Sherlock works, looks like both the vocal group and the silent majority were in agreement, because the works did keep selling like hotcakes. So to apply that same situation to ME3, fixing the ending, and giving the vocal naysayers their wish, is far more likely to lead to further commercial success, rather than to please the ones who wish to keep the status quo, as that will lead to less money being made. And at the end of the day, they're a business and making money is what they do. |
|
|
4/15/12 2:20:10 PM#86
And yet it was logical. Logic dictates that synthetic sentients can't build themselves, and can't become sentient without having been built by organics. The endings coincide perfectly with the Reapers. Remember you've been told over and over again that without the Reapers there is chaos, that organics will always make synthetics and then be overthrown by them. The Proteans had the Metacon War. The Reapers were likely made by an organic race, the Geth and the Quarians, even EDI disobeyed her maker. Note the Asari had outlawed AI's even before the Quarians had created the Geth. It's like organics have racial memories passed down eon upon eon to not mess with Synthetics. All of which leads to the three choices. One, to believe that organics will always follow the same patterns each and every cycle as the Protheans and the Catalyst believe and thus control the Reapers to ensure that synthetics never wipe out organics. Two, to believe that organics are worth more than synthetics and the Catalyst is not to be believed.Thus the choice is to wipe out all synthetic life in the galaxy, including the Geth and EDI. Or Three, to believe that Syntetics and Organics can be more than the sum of their beginnings and can coexist in harmony, as Sheperd can demonstrate with the Quarians and the Geth who become allies if not friends. |
|
|
4/15/12 2:47:45 PM#87
I've thus far avoided outright telling anyone in this thread that he/she is wrong, but you sir/madam spent way too much time replying to a post that was nothing more than sarcasm. Seriously what got into your head that you thought I would even care what you thought of each line item? (I don't care, by the way, and only read up to the point where you started pointing out each thing I jokingly wanted changed) They were just there for fluff, the point of my post was "you guys are all whiney entitled creeps who think the world revolves around you and deserve something more". Maybe my problem there was what I wrote was too cryptic and not hand fed. In hind sight that might explain a lot. I demand a new ending to my original post!!! |
|
|
'Nuff said.
Associate Editor: MMORPG.com  |
|
|
4/15/12 6:28:40 PM#89
Ahh so no response then? Color me surprised... |
|
Originally posted by Segun777 Response to what?
I have a relevant question for you: When "William Dietz's ME novel, "Deception", came out, it was found to be filled with canonical errors that the fans of the series and the universe discovered. Bioware has since forced a rewrite to correct this. What about Dietz's artistic integrity? Hypocrite much, Bioware? :) Secondly, whether or not the endings are logical (by your reasoning), they still introduce a host of plot holes, none of which I will enumerate since there are great YouTube videos and narrative analyses out there for you to search. Logic is one thing. Canonical violation is a whole 'nother ballgame. Associate Editor: MMORPG.com |
|
|
4/15/12 6:41:31 PM#91
Wow Suzie, I have never seen you so vocal on any topic on this site in all my time here, including other articles you have written. You are really upset huh? Whilst I understand everyone (including me) was annoyed at the bleak ending to the Mass Effect series, we have to remember its just a game. This much drama seems to be a bit OTT to me. Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom |
|
|
4/15/12 6:42:02 PM#92
Bioware. Lets be perfectly honest the number of companies that can come up with a coherent story, you can count on one hand. Bioware, Bungie, Naughty Dog, RockStar, and then the list goes cold. Sometimes a company like Remedy will hit gold ala Max Payne but consistently good story telling is hard to find. It's telling that our industry sells tens of millions of copies of COD/Battlefield and Madden every year and they get glowing reviews, while an rpgs like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Witcher 2, etc, etc get penalized for the smallest things. Just take a quick gander at reviews of rpgs and you'll notice that they consistently score five or so points on average lower than games of similar technical skill. RPG's generally take half again as long as normal games and sell less than the big budget AAA titles, even the best ones (ME Trilogy, Dragon Age, FF, etc.) Even rpgs like Skyrim with weak storys can slide by by showing great graphics, it's not that story is dead it's simply that it doesn't sell games. Much like the big popcorn movies of summer, the videogame industry is inundated with shooters, sports games, action games, and fighters. I hate the ending of Memento, couldn't stand that movie for it. And yet not once did I believe that the movie wasn't a impressive achievement. I read fantasy and sci-fi and lately, some of my favorite authors are writing little more than romance novels cloaked in supernatural fiction. It's completely irritating to me, but the fans want it and so the writers write it, but I still love the authors, even if I only read their early stuff. What I'm trying to say is that this is not a popularity contest, videogames are tethered enough as it is by the business model, what does a videogame writer take from the hateful speech of the last month against Bioware? How many writers do you think thought to themselves it aint even worth the hassle? Actions have consequences, they reverberate long after we've forgotten them. How has this last month helped the videogame industry at all? If we don't like you're ending we'll shout it from the rooftops until you do what we say? If you didn't like the ending fine, that's your right. But remember there are only a few companies that even care about you enough to write a good yarn. Did this last month gain you any more companies or help chase them away?
As someone who has said they're no longer going to buy Bioware games anymore I'd simply like an answer. |
|
|
If I read my favorite author and enjoy every one of his novels up to the last chapter of the latest book, I am going to be VERY careful before I buy another one particularly if he tossed out every convention he'd used in every other book in favor of some cheap ending. If I go to see my favorite director's latest flick....or my favorite band's latest album...*see above* Same thing. Bioware is no different. I LOVED Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and 95% of Mass Effect 3. The ending has, however, resulted in an utter disconnect from everything that came before it. Buying another Bioware product is going to be a very carefully made decision based on a number of factors but, most importantly, whether or not they make sense of the abominable ending foisted on their customers. If and until that happens, Bioware won't see another dollar of mine, ever. Associate Editor: MMORPG.com |
|
|
4/15/12 7:05:18 PM#94
That's so sad that I'm speechless. I see you avoided the question completely as well. Whatever I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Well I suppose thats that. Best of luck to you. "You can't predict how people will act, Garrus. But you can control how you'll respond. In the end, that's what really matters." |
|
|
4/15/12 7:57:56 PM#95
I'm fully aware of the Heinlein novel as Heinlein happens to be one of my favorite authors. I've read every one of his novels (my favorite being The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). I fully recognize that the novel has extremly strong militiristic themes within it. If you read Heinlein novels, you'll find that most of them have rather extreme arguments for things that the average person would balk at, from free love and non-traditional marriage practices to athiesm, anarchism and all sorts of different governmental / philosophical ideas. The difference between the Verehoven film and the novel is that the characters in the Verhoven film are absolutely unsympathetic and without substance. Contrawise, there are actual arguments and discussions within the novel in which ideas are questioned and characters are developed. It's certainly not Heinlein's best novel, but it remains thought provoking and fun. The film is a sad joke by comparison. I understand that Verehoven often tries to do satire, but he's so over the top that it just comes off as nonsene to me. The only Verehoven film I liked was "Black Book." (It's true, I don't even like Robocop, and Total Recall? Any respect I may have had for the man vanished when I listened to his commentary track for it. The man comes off like a snotty twelve year old hopped up on energy drinks. I like things that are more cerebral. That's why I enjoyed Mass Effect so much, and also why I'm so glad that Bioware ended it the way it did, with something that fits the theme of the first two games, rather than some bombastic uber boss battle that results in you winning everything and losing nothing. I'll say it again. The ending was rushed, needs to be fleshed out, but it is the RIGHT ENDING.
|
|
I don't need to answer the question outside of this excellent article about how the controversy could EMPOWER the industry, not hurt it: http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-change-could-have-empowered-game-writing/ Beyond that, I have few enough dollars for my entertainment. I want to purchase things that, in the end, leave me feeling satisfied. Bioware did not accomplish that for me and at least 62,000 others either. Like anyone with limited amounts of ready cash, I choose to buy products that give me what I want. Associate Editor: MMORPG.com |
|
|
Associate Editor: MMORPG.com |
|
|
4/15/12 10:17:09 PM#98
Originally posted by GullyFoyle Saying its the right ending. I think you are reading into it, rather than looking at the actual thing. Mass Effect was about choices and those choices having consequences for good or ill. Mass Effect told a story. The last 5 minutes was not about chocies, since they were all the same endings. Worse the choices you made before that had no impact on what happened. The last 5 minutes was not in line with how they had been telling the story up to that point. There is a pattern and a pacing a story follows. As in exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and dénouement. It was if someone with only a general idea of the prior story had been asked to finish it. If anyone wants to argue the ending was right, please watch the links in this thread which give long and detailed reasons as to why the ending was bad then please explain how they are wrong. |
|
|
4/15/12 10:27:40 PM#99
Originally posted by GullyFoyle How does it fit the theme? The theme of ME was up to the last 5 minutes of ME3 is to STOP THE REAPERS. You don't care or know why they are doing what ever they are doing your just going to STOP THE REAPERS. But instead of just stopping the reapers at the end, bioware felt that they needed to explain the reapers' actions... why? It doesn't make the ending any better, it actually makes it worse as it add themes and questions in to what should be the falling action of a story. Does ME series deal with more complex plots? Of course but they are not the main plot nor should they be. Had Shep cared to explore why the reapers were or the game gave hints all along the way. This ending might be the right one but as the game never even tries to explain them till the starchild appears and just lays it all out, it's a terrible ending that in no way fits the theme of ME. Bioware should have saved the why for another game or series, because in the end ME should have just being about STOPPING the REAPERS not about understanding the reapers. I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less. |
|
|
4/15/12 10:37:45 PM#100
Sales figures do dicatate when it comes to Commercial Art, yes. That's a distinction some of you chaps seem to be unable to grokk. It's like having an architect design a house for you, he can call it Art if he wants, but you're the Patron. You're the one paying for things, and you'll be the one living in the house. So the House has to suit your taste, and not the Architects. As for your music examples. a) Sir Paul McCartney does not own the rights to the Beatle songs, so he'd need permission to release hip hop versions. That's the whole owing people royalties issue, when you're doing a cover of a song. But if he paid up, he could very much do so. And this had indeed been done before. Note how I mentioned Spiderbait in one of my previous posts. Their version of "Ghost Riders in the Sky" really can't be called Country. It's more of a rock-country-metal hybrid. Or to go more Classical. Toccata and Fugue in D minor by Vanessa Mae. Originally it was a classical piece meant for the Organ. She turned it into techno-pop-classical by using an electric violin. Or let's compare Joe Harnell's "Fly me to the Moon - Bossa Nova" with let's say Sinatra's version or Nat King Cole's. Same song, yet all three very different. b) Jackson. Well, he can't exactly redo Thriller being dead and all. Plus there's the small matter that while Country may be big in the US, Pop is bigger when you consider the world market. Which is what Jackson was aiming at. So yes, again a business decision to ensure that the song would sell across the whole world, rather than just in the US. c) As for Bioware doing a shooter. Not as if they had that much experience with those, so them sticking to what they knew/know is smart business. The shooting aspects of ME have been criticized as subpar by those more in tune with regular 3rd person shooters annex fps. So, again it's not as if they'd be drawing in a whole new audience, if they did decide to permanently go down that route, as the people attracted to those genres weren't very happy with their work. Plus there's the issue of them losing their old audience as well. So again, that wouldn't be smart business. Especially, not considering that EA already had DICE for the fps. Heck, it's one of the reasons why EA bought Bioware in the first place, because they wanted to expand their market into the RPG/Action-RPG market, and having someone with Bioware's rep to handle such things is smart business. That's what it all boils down to in the end. Smart business. And losing your reputation, due to ego, when someone made something that just didn't fit within the existing framework. Heck, when the fan community has to come up with a reasonable explanation, like say the Indoctration Theory, to explain things. Well, then you're doing something wrong. And that's not smart business. So your whole, we have to coddle Bioware or they'll stop making RPGs. Not a fear you have to worry about, as them switching to another genre isn't smart business. Not forgetting to mention, that even if it were the case, that a new studio would arise to fill in the gap. CD Projekt Red, wasn't founded till 2002, and what do they make? RPGs. Piranha Bytes has been around for a while, but what do they make? RPGs. Or let's try Eidos Montreal with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The original Deus Ex, only sold a little over 1 million copies as of april 2009. So why go to all that expense and make Human Revolution then.. Or what about Ken Levine and the guys over at Irrational Games. Why make Bioshocks? Not as if System Shock sold millions of copies. If a company wants to make a game, then they will, provided that they think there's a market for it. And gee a rather vocal and unhappy audience seems to suggest, that yes, there is a definite market for it. Just that the consumers won't put up with being treated like mushrooms. So again, Bioware not fixing this mess, that's not smart business. It's just something that's going to bite them in the backside in the end, and they'll end up like Pandemic or BIS, just a few paragraphs in the video games annals. If that's what they want, then so be it. Their call to make. Second chances aren't given often, and only a fool spurns them out of misplaced pride. |
|
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 19, 2013 1:37 PM
- Page Created in 1.170 seconds -
