The Story Doesn't Matter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Trishbot:
I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

FORBES has been the only website to analyze it from a business perspective; happy customers are good business after all.

I have a problem with reviewers who realized a large portion disagrees with their opinion and decided to retaliate with name-calling and petty insults instead of opening up the floor to a rational discussion.

Yahztee does insulting for a job, no sense criticizing him for it.

Other than that, I'm not sure what to say. People may think of the ending what they will, and they may be requesting changes to the game if they wish. It may not make a lot of sense, but there's nothing wrong with it either. There's no real point to get this worked up.

Also, don't forget that authors here on escapist and elsewhere actually profit from this whole controversy, so I really wouldn't take any insults very personally. :)

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

How many reviewers do you want to bet got to the end? I'll bet less than 30%.

"Oh balls! My deadline is in one day, and I've still got six hours of game left! Gah, it's been great so far..."

Trishbot:

disappointed:

Trishbot:
I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

But some of them were drooling idiots, etc. and people tend to focus on the worst of everything, just like you did right there.

Oh, I'm fine with people disagreeing. More than fine. But if you disagree, don't do what Yahtzee and IGN did and just outright call everyone who disagrees an "idiot".

I'm a game designer myself AND a fan of video games. I can see both sides. I want what's best for the industry, and taking an "us vs. them" stance is bad for everyone. But I have a problem being insulted for my opinion by "professional" reviewers who get PAID to say the crap they do. They resort to fanboyism and trolling when I would like the industry to act like the paid professionals they claim to be.

So is this the first time you've decided you don't like Yahtzee casually throwing insults around? He's not successful for holding his tongue. The gaming community thrives on foul language and casual aggressiveness. If you don't like such things, you should never have been watching or reading the things that you did. There's hypocrisy in this sudden prudishness that's sweeping through the forums.

I go back to my point that both you and Yahtzee and IGN and me and everyone else focus on the worst of things. You have picked the worst, most extreme and most boring quotes from otherwise interesting takes on the affair (I dunno about IGN - I never read it). As long as you focus on that part of it, you'll never get to the good stuff.

And are we now saying that fans being dicks is OK because they do it for the love of douchery and that only people paid to write should be held to account for their words? That seems quite convenient.

Really, the whole affair was ugly and messy and the way forward is to forget all the crap that was said by both sides and focus on the interesting parts of the discussion because it brings out a lot that could use improving in the industry, from the Molyneux-esque feature promising that led to people expecting considerably more from the ending than was delivered to the generally shoddy nature of reviews. And the community is not without culpability in either of those issues either.

BreakfastMan:

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Well, I thought it was a great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, even if it had a crappy ending. Thanks for calling me retarded for having a different opinion. :/

I'm not calling you retarded. It's OK to have an opinion like that. Especially if you're not a professional reviewer. But EVERY FUCKIN' REVIEWER HAD THE SAME OPINION??? And it never crossed their mind that not all fans will be satisfied with such an ending? I'm sorry but that is just impossible.

lacktheknack:
How many reviewers do you want to bet got to the end? I'll bet less than 30%.

"Oh balls! My deadline is in one day, and I've still got six hours of game left! Gah, it's been great so far..."

My point still stands if that's the case. If they didn't finish the game they shouldn't comment on the story at all. They shouldn't even make a fuckin' review. They are being deliberately dishonest.

edit

Adam Jensen:

BreakfastMan:

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Well, I thought it was a great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, even if it had a crappy ending. Thanks for calling me retarded for having a different opinion. :/

I'm not calling you retarded. It's OK to have an opinion like that. Especially if you're not a professional reviewer. But EVERY FUCKIN' REVIEWER HAD THE SAME OPINION??? And it never crossed their mind that not all fans will be satisfied with such an ending? I'm sorry but that is just impossible.

Yes. Yes, you pretty much are. You said

Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Since I was not payed to have a positive opinion, that pretty much says you think I am retarded.

As for the possibility of reviewers having those opinions: did you even read the article you were responding to explaining why they did not think of the ending when writing the review? I mean, come on, it is spelled out pretty concisely up there. :/

Thank you so much for coming back, Shamus :) I love your articles!

I agree with it entirely, but especially the first half. I liked the ending when I was playing, because I had no idea that my 15 hours of planet scanning made no difference, that there were gaping plotholes all over the place, that the end choice resulted in 3 different coloured explosions. Only doing one playthrough of ME3 is so deceptive.

I still think it was a good ending, though, as entertainment. I loved it at the time, and while I'm seeing more and more holes in it every day... I can't bring myself to dislike it.

Shamus, I love you and your articles/blogs. You deserve some type of award.
This is usually why I don't trust reviews before the game is out. I know it's usually some type of quickie.

When I first beat Mass Effect 3, I was simply disappointed by the ending and the lack of closure. It wasn't until I thought about it the next day that I started noticing all the logic holes. It wasn't until the day after that that I realized just how much the ending conflicted with existing lore. Even after that I was still thinking, "Well, the ending I chose was bad, but maybe the other two options are better." (Ha!) It wasn't until I turned to YouTube and watched all of the endings before I realized what a mess the whole thing was.

So, SO true. At first, I was disappointed. Then as the days kept on and I kept thinking about the ending, I couldn't help but get more upset.

I loved the ending of ME3. Maybe I chose the right one?

I put off playing ME3 for awhile because of all this and I can honestly say... FUCK YOU! You mean I put off playing what was one of the best playing experiences I have had for over a year? The fact that I sat there dreading the ending almost ruined my immersion entirely. To all those that winged and moaned, I hope you get nothing. I hope Bioware changes nothing and they still make a ton of money, they deserve it.

Again, like many other game related issues, people flock to an issue and (IMO) try to polarize. Seriously, I am becoming more and more despondent about 'gamers'. I have been a gamer for nearly 18 years now and only now am I starting to see this as a bad thing.

I read 4 reviews by Game Reviewers and because of their great reviews I figured what the hell. And damn am I glad I did!

RaikuFA:
I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

I have to say that it's a pleasant surprise that so far there's only this one histrionic howler in the thread so far. It's encouraging to see so many people who didn't like the ending yet are able to move on with their lives.

That said, I've always liked Shamus's perspective, even when I don't totally agree with him. In this case, I'm glad he brought in a new perspective to combat the rhetoric against critics that's getting bandied about way too much.

370999:

RaikuFA:
I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

True, but some reviews of JRPGs do say the reviewer looked at the box art and wrote a review based off of a gameplay video and gave it a meh score because of its plot which is save the world. Some don't even get their facts straight.

Well Shamus I can understand your point to a degree. But for me there are two glaring problems.

First, as many have stated before, after the whole controversy started virtually all major gaming sites (including the ones I frequent in my own country) has basically continued poking fun of people geniunly dissatisfied with the ending. Sure there will always be bad apples screaming bloody murder on both sides of an argument, but to only focus on those few and painting everyone not satisified with the ending as idiots is just deliberately schewing and ignoring the valid points many have.

My other main problem with this is that despite discussing the ending afterwards with several reviewers not one of them admitted there even being any issue at all with the ending. Even in retrospect they claimed the ending was amazing, thought provoking, brilliant etc etc. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that they are not allowed to think that (although deliberately ignoring all the plot holes are baffling to me personally), it's just that it becomes rather queer when almost all reviewers seem to think so while the opinions of the fans are much more divided.

I also find it interesting how so many who does not seem at all invested in the games themselves still feel the need to weigh in with their criticism of the dissatisfied fans. dissatisfaction with something will always seem strange to those not invested in it. I for one never understood the issues with the endings of for example Lost, as I never got into it in the first place. But I didn't turn around and call people dissatisfied idiots for voicing their opinions.

Somehow I feel that many reviewers are taking this stance out of pure elitism. I dont think they are paid off (although one should be aware of the sometimes dangerously close relationship between industry and game journalism), but I think some of them are being very elitist regarding this just for the sake of it. And to not see how artistic works are being changed due to different compromises each and every day and somehow paint this changing-the-ending business as the end of games as an artistic expression seems on the one hand naive and on the other just dishonest. Surely even they must now that movies get changed due to preview viewings all the time, books have been changed many times in the past (sherlock holmes being the one I can think of right now), and publishers definatly make people change their artistic works. How then is this suddenly so incredibly controversial.

Wrapping up, I just wish the people not invested in it would simply stay not invested and let those of us dissatisfied be dissatisfied. And it pains me greatly that many gaming sites I used to frequent and many journalists I used to respect has been virtually fighting with each other for the title of who can best belittle their fans. That genuinly saddens me.

RaikuFA:

370999:

RaikuFA:
I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

True, but some reviews of JRPGs do say the reviewer looked at the box art and wrote a review based off of a gameplay video and gave it a meh score because of its plot which is save the world. Some don't even get their facts straight.

Indeed, though JRPGs are a niche, as well as games journalist being quite young

Et tu Shamus?

Nah, in all fairness this was a pretty decent article, which points out the "trending" nature of reviews, stemming from the fact that those reviewing the material, have not (fully) engaged the material.

This is why most "the best bits" of games happen in the first few hours... developer's know this and cater to the weakness of the "system".

This should naturally lead one to a sense of "credulity" when taking "anyone's" commentary on a product. ESPECIALLY a game, in which the staff of said reviewing establishment is "in" the game.

Concerning ME 3 specifically... it is a 7/10 at best. A retcon RPG space opera transformed into a cover based shooter, suffering from many of the same issues it's predecessor(Dragon Age 2) suffered from.

A black eye for Bioware (they seem aware of this fact), and the proof of the pudding will be in the DLC sales they make, or consequently, don't make.

A shame in many respects, in that there are not that many options in the genre, in the "games and toys" section of the local shop-mart.

While Shamus may not be obliged (contractually?) to express his real opinions, at least he has made an attempt to stay neutral. Good show.

370999:

RaikuFA:

370999:

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

True, but some reviews of JRPGs do say the reviewer looked at the box art and wrote a review based off of a gameplay video and gave it a meh score because of its plot which is save the world. Some don't even get their facts straight.

Indeed, though JRPGs are a niche, as well as games journalist being quite young

True, true. Although we do need more JRPG centric reviewers(the only one I know of is Dale North on Destructoid) as places like GI and GP have admitted in the past that their staff dosen't like the genre.

For example, I can fault Mass Effect 2 for putting opposing actions like "sprint" and "take cover" on the same button.

And Mass Effect 3. And Uncharted 3. And any other fairly recent game that's still doing that shit. Game devs: KNOCK IT OFF. I get it, Gears of War did it like that when it introduced this kind of cover system into gaming. It was a stupid way to map the controls then and it's a stupid way to map the controls now. And do you know what else Gears of War did? They fixed it in the third game with an alternate control scheme that puts dodge rolls and running on X and leaves cover on A. Took a while to get used to, but I'll never play any other way again. Or, I wouldn't, if you other developers would stop forcing me to. I'm goddamn sick of getting stuck to a wall when I wanted to sprint or roll away (followed by getting killed) and rolling against a wall before standing up again when I wanted to take cover (followed by getting killed again) in games that aren't Gears 3 but use the same kind of cover system as the Gears franchise.

And to make it worse, Mass Effect 3 stuck about 2-3 other functions to the A button, so I can roll or take cover when I wanted to pick something up, activate something, or revive someone. Holy shit, you failed big-time on that one BioWare. Forget fixing the ending*, fix the *#$%ing controls!

...No I did not enjoy my Insanity playthrough of Mass Effect 3, why do you ask?

*Fixing the ending is an impossible task anyway. They'll never find something to make everyone happy. There's the people who just think there needs to be more time to get proper answers out of you-know-ho, there's the people who just want to see more of how the galaxy turns out years after the ending, there's the people who swear by the Indoctrination Theory, there's the people who think the entire ending is crap and needs to be completely thrown out and redone, and there's the people who think it should be left alone. And I probably missed a few. Never going to be able to "fix" the ending with so many flavors of unhappy players. But you know what you can fix? The controls. So fix those instead.

I had the same discussion, that turned into an augment with, another member of the Escapist crowd and appreciate your words on reviewing vs critiquing, punditry vs journalism.

Something that I think made a difference for me and my enjoying, and subsequently strange liking of, the ending was that I never thought that my choices made a difference in the world I was experiencing - except to say how I viewed, and the surrounding cast viewed, my character (as in my morality). The choices I made really felt like they would always result in the same thing - continuation of the game. I played in a way that felt like I was all ways asking "how can I make your life/world better." I always wanted to be the likable hero, and in the end that's what I chose. The out come of a choice might be slightly different with certain factions and individuals and you might not get the resources you are after, but you still got to go to the next mission, always. You might loose options for how to finish a mission, and possible loose side quests, but it was alway the same result. Shepard continues on. Because of this, I think that I never got a sense that Shepard was that deep, and the people around him/her could be slightly more molded as they were trying to make a relation ship with me.

This is off topic and a bit devils advocate, but I very curious about the people who sent the cup cakes to Bio-Ware and a certain cyclical thought about the endings. Many fans are saying that all the endings are the same, and most of those fans are also screaming about a promise that it wouldn't be an A, B, C ending. If they are the all the same aren't they all just variations of "A" and thus one ending? Not and A, B, or C? Just "A" with a little more green and what not? Or was the promise something else? Like you won't get a dialog tree and get to chose and ending? Just curious....I like cup cakes too.

Game journalists from most of the major gaming sites seemed genuinely shocked and uncomfortable by the outcry over the ending. I think the gaming public caught them not doing their jobs adequately, and it made them take an overly defensive stance. Combine this with the fact that Bioware has long held an overly comfortable relationship with the big gaming websites, and you quickly saw how game journalists circled the wagons and took endless pot shots at unhappy gamers.

BreakfastMan:
Yes. Yes, you pretty much are.

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

GoodApprentice:
Game journalists from most of the major gaming sites seemed genuinely shocked and uncomfortable by the outcry over the ending. I think the gaming public caught them not doing their jobs adequately, and it made them take an overly defensive stance. Combine this with the fact that Bioware has long held an overly comfortable relationship with the big gaming websites, and you quickly saw how game journalists circled the wagons and took endless pot shots at unhappy gamers.

Well of course. They were exposed and they thought the only course of action is to blame the fans and try to justify their shitty job with "games are art" bullshit. But when the "whiny idiots" (we who hated the ending) deconstructed that ending and with logical arguments explained why we were right and they were wrong, suddenly they stopped. They know that further attempts at blaming the fans would end bad for them, and admiring a mistake would be even worse, so now they're playing the "let's ignore this until it's gone" card.

Adam Jensen:

BreakfastMan:
Yes. Yes, you pretty much are.

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

So basically, if I am a consumer, who is not posting a review, and I liked the game and thought it was a great conclusion to the series, crappy ending notwithstanding, I am fine. If I am a reviewer and hold the same opinion, I am unprofessional/paid off/not worthy of respect? I don't get that. Tell me if I am misunderstanding your opinion, but as I understand it now, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

And Shamus gets another vote for President of the Internet, for being a reasonable source of discourse.

RaikuFA:
I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

While I'm not saying I wouldn't read his opinions on it, the Extra Credits guys did a three part series on the difference between the two genres recently that was fairly comprehensive.

Surely this little video has nothing at all to say on the subject... :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD2GgWKIrs&feature=relmfu

Fact is, if you game... you will be lied to at-least-once, by someone, somewhere, involved in the product process.

Sounds like you're making excuses, Shamus. Story in a narrative driven game does matter and all of Bioware's games thus far have been narrative driven, whether you agree or not that is a fact. Granted I also disagree with Angry Joe giving ME3 an 8/10. Before even going into the ending at best it's a 6-7 out of 10, considering all the stuff that was removed from the game or just poorly implemented. I'd also hate to bring this up, but "fun" isn't a good way to grade or describe anything. Just so you know, some people think self mutilation is fun.

Shamus said: "When I first beat Mass Effect 3, I was simply disappointed by the ending and the lack of closure".

That's reason enough to raise an eyebrow and mention it on your review. Also, as other people have pointed out, a lot of the journalists are defending the ending even today and really overplaying the art card.

I think game journalists too frequently loose perspective, spoiled by a relashionship with the game (previews), their own excitement with a title and simply lack of knowledge about some technical stuff (graphic engines, narrative structure, etc.).

Yes, deadlines are hard and, in RPGs in which you have to spend lots of hours, they are particularly fierce, but failing to connect with the consumers on this level is truly bad an opens the door to all kinds of mistrust.

BreakfastMan:

Adam Jensen:

BreakfastMan:
Yes. Yes, you pretty much are.

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

So basically, if I am a consumer, who is not posting a review, and I liked the game and thought it was a great conclusion to the series, crappy ending notwithstanding, I am fine. If I am a reviewer and hold the same opinion, I am unprofessional/paid off/not worthy of respect? I don't get that. Tell me if I am misunderstanding your opinion, but as I understand it now, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry to get in the way of the discussion - just to add my 2 cents:

Sometimes the reviewer likes a game but he is also able to recognize that some people would not like some aspects of it. The best reviewer can mix their own opinion with a more broad analysis.

The Angry Joe review is something like this in reverse. He clearly dislikes the ending a lot, but recognizes that the game has other merits that are worth an 8/10.

To me, a reviewer that fails to understand what are the expectations for a game like ME3 is a bad reviewer - it simply does not matter if he likes the game or not.

hulksmashley:
Kaidan was wonderfully characterized. Just saying. I'm a bit of a fangirl about him.

And I knew seconds after finishing the ending that I hated it. But this makes sense from a review perspective. When people are judging your judgment it makes sense to only talk about things that can be factually proven.

Well, A lot of reviews I read were praising the ending, and some said things like "you definitely will get the closure you want". I want they factually prove that.

SPOILER

The mere death of the main character is not closure to the story. So Shepard dies and the Reapers are defeated - if this is enough to warrant a good closure they could simply write this words on a black screen after Marauder Shields (And the worst of it is that I think this is actually better than the actual ending).

Very well said, Mr. Young. I'm in agreement with you on this. I have to say, thoguh, I thought that your words on how a story factors into a review were was the most interesting thing said. I'm in agreement with you there; something that's so subjective should best be left for a post-review op-ed piece.

zinho73:

BreakfastMan:

Adam Jensen:

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

So basically, if I am a consumer, who is not posting a review, and I liked the game and thought it was a great conclusion to the series, crappy ending notwithstanding, I am fine. If I am a reviewer and hold the same opinion, I am unprofessional/paid off/not worthy of respect? I don't get that. Tell me if I am misunderstanding your opinion, but as I understand it now, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry to get in the way of the discussion - just to add my 2 cents:

Sometimes the reviewer likes a game but he is also able to recognize that some people would not like some aspects of it. The best reviewer can mix their own opinion with a more broad analysis.

The Angry Joe review is something like this in reverse. He clearly dislikes the ending a lot, but recognizes that the game has other merits that are worth an 8/10.

To me, a reviewer that fails to understand what are the expectations for a game like ME3 is a bad reviewer - it simply does not matter if he likes the game or not.

I guess we are in disagreement here. When I read a review, all I want is the reviewers opinion of the game and the reasons they have that opinion clearly spelled out. If I want to know anything about a game I might not like, I can glean that from the meat of the review itself or from a different review. I don't feel a reviewer should be forced to arbitrarily lower or raise their scores depending on whether or not other people will like or dislike the game as much as them. It is up to the reader to decide, based on the reviewers opinion of the game, what to do with the info. But, I digress, that is getting away from the topic at hand. I don't want to lead this comments section down a bunny trail.

The whole appeal of the series was the idea that choices made during the game wouldn't affect just the ending but the course of the story in sequels. For those who hung in their with the series and replayed each installment trying to get the perfect ending, I can see how the generic endings are a smack in the face.

Personally I've never been that emotionally invested in a video game to be so enraged as people are. There's a lot more going on in the world to be pissed off about than a video game ending.

Adam Jensen:
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Yes because NO ONE can have a view different then yours ever? right?

I don't particularly care for the ending myself, though I will defend some of its supposed holes because they aren't, but saying they MUST be bribed because their opinion is different is borderline conspiracy.

I'm of the opinion that the real problem here is that gamers can't hold their load for more than five seconds when a new game is released. Gamers want new games NOW. Many gamers pre-order (a practice I will never understand) and the rest want to buy on the day of release or very shortly afterwards, which means the reviewers need to get advance copies and then play the games in a hurry, which means reviews are rush-jobs performed by people who are, in every sense, friends with the developers.

Gamers vote with their wallets and get the reviews they deserve.

great read once again,i have put the me3 fiasco behind but it still hurts,how idiotic of the writers.when an ending is very good or very bad,it's what stays with you,and so the me franchise was no more

ps. i would like to see them do another me,without all the relays and all

Hmm, i play ME for the story first, then comes gameplay. Don`t get me wrong ( the gameplay is fine) but when i want to play a tps i don`t play ME. ME comes first in terms of story and choices. I guess most ME players just wanted a ending in terms of the context and the choices they made in ME3 (or ME1-3) and are majorly pissed of about the fact that Bioware didn`t deliver (regardless the promise of many multiple endings). Instead they choose to screw it all and created a whole WTF moment as ending for a beloved series. Endings are important the last moment is the lasting one.

edit: @sta697
ooh, you delivered the point faster. Same reason i won`t even play ME3.

OldDirtyCrusty:
Hmm, i play ME for the story first, then comes gameplay. (...) Bioware didn`t deliver (regardless the promise of many multiple endings). Instead they choose to screw it all and created a whole WTF moment as ending for a beloved series.

This. If they decide to use "great story" & "influence the story" in marketing, they don't get to hide behind "artistic integrity" - either they deliver or they don't. Also, "artistic integrity" is hard to apply to story that is being created by a bunch of different people, retconning each other, writing their parts inconsistently and obfuscating responsibility for specific pieces. Calling such pile of ideas "art" in themselves is missing the point - game can be considered as such, but if the artist screws up with the leg, whole sculpture is going to be rightfully criticised and considered a failure. Yes, we can have failures in art too, it is not just a matter of "taste", regardless of how far we got into "applauding intelectual impotency" crazy land in mass media age. Romans didn't use "gustibus" as something akin to "everybody have an opinion", quite the opposite.

On the topic of "journalistic integrity" - conspiracies are not really necessary (although hey, Kane & Lynch case was treated with stonewall of deny&ridicule for soooo long, eh?).It's simply what we get when "opinion" is suddenly the end of it all, the sole purpose of review, even though it is not that much more than "I like chocolate better than ice-cream". Do any of us care if random person from internet likes chocolate especially when standard defense when people point out inconsistencies or ignorance is "it's JUST an opinion"?

You can either have "it is an opinion, deal with it" OR "every major outlet with essentially the same opinions, differing in details and choice of words". Also, both are useless unless we actually know person stating opinions good enough OR we know plenty of other opinions of such person to picture some sort of their thought process. Or sometimes it's just small thing like Hamburger video piece, describing DA2 wall-to-wall female companions as an... achievement of their writers?

Finally, if every single pro-review gives ME3 highest praise (yes, 8/10 counts to, it's not *my* responsibility 2/10 do not happen anymore and numbers are even more worthless this way), can we simply get an honest list of

- "good & bad" (YES! we can use those words without hiding behind an opinion, however strange it might sound, Greeks certainly didn't mind tearing piece of art apart, if it, for example, contained elements that screwed up with the genre)

- "promised & delivered" (it would be a bit riskier to sell PR masterpieces like "16 different endings!!!" if there was something harder to dismiss as "raging fans" at the end of the road)

...instead of pretending it is "I liked Garrus, but Tali didn't do much for me"? It could let journalists to actually do what they are ... supposed to do: capture an audience with their words and craft while writing about the same bloody thing every other journalist does, not with their tales about irrelevant tastes.

But gee, that would be... hard?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here