High Horse

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Slag (4396 posts) -

@Azalot said:

@Slag: There was no personal involvement, I meant collectively. A lot of people basically just got on a podium and said " if you have option A... your a fucking idiot". And these weren't internet trolls, these were ppl with a public profile.

...

It was probs a perceived slight anyway, that was half the point of my post, to see if anyway felt the same and it seems not many ppl did.

...

Ok gotcha then yeah my original sentiment remains my position. It's their loss then. If they don't respect their audience, they won't have one for long. In your shoes I'd just be disappointed and probably conclude that these people are no longer worth my time.

Which I guess in a way sounds similar their own line of thinking I guess, but the key difference is that they need our pageviews/readership, we don't need their opinion. We have the leverage here, they aren't being smart by talking down people whose goodwill they depend on. The difference between being a service provider and a customer.

@Kadayi said:

Have a read of this article by Arthur Gies that was ostensibly supposed to be a 'round table' discussion about the (original) ending of Mass Effect 3.
http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/5/3461080/reviewers-talk-mass-effect-3-the-ending-the-narrative-the-controversy
....
Really up to Brad openly recoiling at the paucity of the original ending and the BS nature of the choices in the podcast there's been little if anyone in the gaming press actually taking a contrary stance to the attitude of Gies and his cohorts in truth, which frankly has been rather frustrating... What is it that film critics are doing that game critics aren't?

Heh that's yet another reason I don't waste my time with Polygon.

Look I get it, there are some big names in video game media acting like total asshats about this in a lot of ways. Being condescending to fans, ignoring legitimate criticism misrepresenting the truth, etc.

But what I was trying to get at is that is their problem, not ours. We've got other options for opinions and given how vast the internet is there is undoubtedly somebody out there willing to be intellectually honest about how ME3's ending was deservedly a letdown.

to answer your rhetorical question

.. What is it that film critics are doing that game critics aren't?

Well being critical for one.

They also tend to be compensated differently, often with considerably less dependence on movie companies. VideoGame Journalists are heavily dependent on game companies even for access to titles.

#52 Posted by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@Slag said:

But what I was trying to get at is that is their problem, not ours. We've got other options for opinions and given how vast the internet is there is undoubtedly somebody out there willing to be intellectually honest about how ME3's ending was deservedly a letdown.

You'd think so, but the hard reality is up until the recent Bombcast and railing on the ending by Brad & Patrick there's been very little from the actual gaming press as far as I'm aware.

#53 Posted by Fearbeard (831 posts) -

I felt a lot of journalists were ignoring the flaws in the ending in an effort to defend the game from the intense backlash. I thought the last mission was the weakest in the game and didn't like the idea that most of what you did in the trilogy was wasted by having the Mass Effect gates destroyed in the end. It seemed that rather then explaining why the ending was good, the journalists focused on why the people complaining were stupid.

I'm more in the middle. I thought the ending was stupid but thought the release of extended endings was even stupider.

#54 Posted by ChristopherOdetunde (2 posts) -

May be it works soon for us..I guess it is mind bogglingly best..

Ireland Equestrian
#55 Edited by ChristopherOdetunde (2 posts) -
#56 Posted by feliciano182 (100 posts) -

@Fearbeard said:

I felt a lot of journalists were ignoring the flaws in the ending in an effort to defend the game from the intense backlash. I thought the last mission was the weakest in the game and didn't like the idea that most of what you did in the trilogy was wasted by having the Mass Effect gates destroyed in the end. It seemed that rather then explaining why the ending was good, the journalists focused on why the people complaining were stupid. I'm more in the middle. I thought the ending was stupid but thought the release of extended endings was even stupider.

Hopefully, if I repeat this enough, somebody will take notice of a glaring issue everyone has been missing all allong, and that only the people who witnessed the "conversations" at the BSN will surely know:

The majority of people who played the Mass Effect games didn't have any idea what they were playing, to pretend that this franchise was going to end with Shepard marrying their respective love interest was quite revealing about the nature of the fanbase of Mass Effect, and it goes beyond my intention to offend such fanbase when I say that a vast majority was having a deluded fantasy they'd built around the characters of the franchise.

For my part, I loved the destruction of the Mass Relays, it highlighted the sheer cost that had to be paid for the war to end, and that has always been something Mass Effect did better than most modern Sci-Fi stories, it made the serious, committed, attempt at letting it's audience know that the races of the galaxy were at war, and that the consequences of such a conflict would resonate forever after it ended, to pretend one can walk cleanly and unscathed from a war (as most of the people who disliked the ending thought was the case) is believing in something that was never going to happen in Mass Effect 3.

#57 Edited by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@feliciano182 said:

For my part, I loved the destruction of the Mass Relays, it highlighted the sheer cost that had to be paid for the war to end, and that has always been something Mass Effect did better than most modern Sci-Fi stories, it made the serious, committed, attempt at letting it's audience know that the races of the galaxy were at war, and that the consequences of such a conflict would resonate forever after it ended, to pretend one can walk cleanly and unscathed from a war (as most of the people who disliked the ending thought was the case) is believing in something that was never going to happen in Mass Effect 3.

The problem is they essentially set up in ME2 DLC 'Arrival' that blowing a relay will cause a supernova. You're on trial for that very 'crime' at the beginning of the game having wiped out an entire Batarian colony in the game as a consequence.

#58 Posted by Wallzii (173 posts) -

I feel that the "I hate the ending" crowd, as you segregate things, are equally on their own high horse and zealots of such opinion.

Works both ways. To each their own and how they interpret the story and its conclusion.

#59 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

@Wallzii said:

I feel that the "I hate the ending" crowd, as you segregate things, are equally on their own high horse and zealots of such opinion.

Works both ways. To each their own and how they interpret the story and its conclusion.

This. I liked the ending in some ways and didn't in others. The things I didn't like tended to not be the things that other people didn't like. Most times when I've tried to actually understand what people didn't like and why, they ended up getting pissed off. Those who hated the ending sometimes have a hard time believing that other people actually did like it (or believing that things they think don't make sense actually do make sense to others), and vice versa. It makes talking about it difficult.

#60 Posted by Fearbeard (831 posts) -

@Kadayi:

To be fair, the destruction of the Mass Relay in the arrival was caused by hurling an asteroid into it. I'm willing to believe that there is a way to shut them down without causing massive supernova destruction.

I just think it was a stupid choice to have them shut down at all and make every universe affecting decision made by the player be basically meaningless because the universe is now completely changed and isolated in a way the player could not control at all. Granted they decided that "oh yeah, they were just damaged and now everyone is repairing them" in the extended ending but that was like putting a band-aid on a bullet hole. The damage to the universe had already been done.

#61 Posted by feliciano182 (100 posts) -

@Kadayi said:

@feliciano182 said:

For my part, I loved the destruction of the Mass Relays, it highlighted the sheer cost that had to be paid for the war to end, and that has always been something Mass Effect did better than most modern Sci-Fi stories, it made the serious, committed, attempt at letting it's audience know that the races of the galaxy were at war, and that the consequences of such a conflict would resonate forever after it ended, to pretend one can walk cleanly and unscathed from a war (as most of the people who disliked the ending thought was the case) is believing in something that was never going to happen in Mass Effect 3.

The problem is they essentially set up in ME2 DLC 'Arrival' that blowing a relay will cause a supernova. You're on trial for that very 'crime' at the beginning of the game having wiped out an entire Batarian colony in the game as a consequence.

Without the extended cut, it was pretty damn clear that the relays did not blow up as they did in Arrival; in the latter, a gargantuan rock hits the relay and FORCEFULLY releases the energy within the core, thus causing a supernova; In the former, The Crucible activates what can be described an energy-transfer protocol that goes from relay to relay, MOVING the energy from each one into the other, while leaving the machinery to collapse on it's own, this is not the same thing.

Even in the bizarre, hallucinatory case that this was an inconsistency, this also highlights another issue with the people who hated the ending, every single modern sci-fi story has inconsistencies, one could even claim that those that don't are among the greatest works of science fiction, I mean, when did fans become this insanily aggresive and entitled ? Do you people realize how many inconsistencies the first trilogy of Star Wars had ? Do you have any idea how many issues there are with Battlestar Galactica's scientific foundations ? As it's also the case with Stargate SG1 or Stargate Atlantis ?

When did it become okay for a demographic with minimal knowledge in matters of science and technology to become the judges, juries and executioners of the writers making those same people get entertained with the idea of science as an integral part of their gaming experience ?

#62 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@feliciano182 said:

@Kadayi said:

@feliciano182 said:

For my part, I loved the destruction of the Mass Relays, it highlighted the sheer cost that had to be paid for the war to end, and that has always been something Mass Effect did better than most modern Sci-Fi stories, it made the serious, committed, attempt at letting it's audience know that the races of the galaxy were at war, and that the consequences of such a conflict would resonate forever after it ended, to pretend one can walk cleanly and unscathed from a war (as most of the people who disliked the ending thought was the case) is believing in something that was never going to happen in Mass Effect 3.

The problem is they essentially set up in ME2 DLC 'Arrival' that blowing a relay will cause a supernova. You're on trial for that very 'crime' at the beginning of the game having wiped out an entire Batarian colony in the game as a consequence.

Without the extended cut, it was pretty damn clear that the relays did not blow up as they did in Arrival; in the latter, a gargantuan rock hits the relay and FORCEFULLY releases the energy within the core, thus causing a supernova; In the former, The Crucible activates what can be described an energy-transfer protocol that goes from relay to relay, MOVING the energy from each one into the other, while leaving the machinery to collapse on it's own, this is not the same thing.

Even in the bizarre, hallucinatory case that this was an inconsistency, this also highlights another issue with the people who hated the ending, every single modern sci-fi story has inconsistencies, one could even claim that those that don't are among the greatest works of science fiction, I mean, when did fans become this insanily aggresive and entitled ? Do you people realize how many inconsistencies the first trilogy of Star Wars had ? Do you have any idea how many issues there are with Battlestar Galactica's scientific foundations ? As it's also the case with Stargate SG1 or Stargate Atlantis ?

When did it become okay for a demographic with minimal knowledge in matters of science and technology to become the judges, juries and executioners of the writers making those same people get entertained with the idea of science as an integral part of their gaming experience ?

The difference from Arrival and ME3 is the same as when you blow up a nuke before it detonates. Is that a pretty decent analogy to use? 
#63 Posted by feliciano182 (100 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

The difference from Arrival and ME3 is the same as when you blow up a nuke before it detonates. Is that a pretty decent analogy to use?

I wouldn't know what happens when one blows up a nuke before it detonates.

Unlike some folk in this life, I can admit ignorance.

#64 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@feliciano182 said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

The difference from Arrival and ME3 is the same as when you blow up a nuke before it detonates. Is that a pretty decent analogy to use?

I wouldn't know what happens when one blows up a nuke before it detonates.

Unlike some folk in this life, I can admit ignorance.

From what I understand it still explodes but no where near the same amount of damage is done. It more or less cancels out the nuke part just making it into a giant flying missile of scrap. 
#65 Posted by feliciano182 (100 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@feliciano182 said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

The difference from Arrival and ME3 is the same as when you blow up a nuke before it detonates. Is that a pretty decent analogy to use?

I wouldn't know what happens when one blows up a nuke before it detonates.

Unlike some folk in this life, I can admit ignorance.

From what I understand it still explodes but no where near the same amount of damage is done. It more or less cancels out the nuke part just making it into a giant flying missile of scrap.

Very interesting ! I'd guess that would be a good analogy in regards to the effect of The Crucible on the relay network.

#66 Edited by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@feliciano182 said:

Even in the bizarre, hallucinatory case that this was an inconsistency, this also highlights another issue with the people who hated the ending, every single modern sci-fi story has inconsistencies, one could even claim that those that don't are among the greatest works of science fiction, I mean, when did fans become this insanily aggresive and entitled ? Do you people realize how many inconsistencies the first trilogy of Star Wars had ? Do you have any idea how many issues there are with Battlestar Galactica's scientific foundations ? As it's also the case with Stargate SG1 or Stargate Atlantis ?

How does any of that make Mass Effects inconsistencies acceptable exactly? Star Wars is space opera made for Kids and Battlestar Galactica managed to spectacularly face plant in the final season. That they're terrible doesn't give the writers of ME a free pass to be terrible as well. You think mediocrity is somehow ok?

#67 Posted by feliciano182 (100 posts) -

@Kadayi:

How does any of that make Mass Effects inconsistencies acceptable exactly?

Because whatever it is that might think about videogame developers and fictional writers, they are still human beings, they are still subjects to pressure and mistakes, you can feel all you want about Mass Effect and the people behind it, but they're the ones pulling their weight and doing the work, not you; and to me, that gives them the benefit of the doubt whenever I see an inconsistency, and what do I do when I see one ? I think "We'll, this isn't exactly game-breaking, and it's something I myself could've missed".

Star Wars is space opera made for Kids and Battlestar Galactica managed to spectacularly face plant in the final season.

May Allah save us all from "The Fans".

That they're terrible doesn't give the writers of ME a free pass to be terrible as well. You think mediocrity is somehow ok?

No matter how much dibs you may claim on the truth, it will never mean something is "terrible".

And there's a difference between a few inconsistencies and noticeably mediocre work friend, and I'm certainly not going to send people to the gallows for extremely minor faults on a videogame, and most certainly while I'm feeling entitled in front of my computer.

#68 Posted by EXTomar (4736 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

Beers on the beach with Garrus. Or..what ever is their equal to beer.

This should have been the "UFO Ending" ala Silent Hill 2.

#69 Posted by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@feliciano182 said:

@Kadayi:

How does any of that make Mass Effects inconsistencies acceptable exactly?

Because whatever it is that might think about videogame developers and fictional writers, they are still human beings, they are still subjects to pressure and mistakes, you can feel all you want about Mass Effect and the people behind it, but they're the ones pulling their weight and doing the work, not you; and to me, that gives them the benefit of the doubt whenever I see an inconsistency, and what do I do when I see one ? I think "We'll, this isn't exactly game-breaking, and it's something I myself could've missed".

Star Wars is space opera made for Kids and Battlestar Galactica managed to spectacularly face plant in the final season.

May Allah save us all from "The Fans".

That they're terrible doesn't give the writers of ME a free pass to be terrible as well. You think mediocrity is somehow ok?

No matter how much dibs you may claim on the truth, it will never mean something is "terrible".

And there's a difference between a few inconsistencies and noticeably mediocre work friend, and I'm certainly not going to send people to the gallows for extremely minor faults on a videogame, and most certainly while I'm feeling entitled in front of my computer.

I'm not a fan. I'm a customer. If I think the meal is substandard and not up to par then I don't see a problem with complaining about it.

#70 Edited by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@gladspooky said:

Nope. Sorry. In the video game industry, if someone shits in your mouth, you've got to lie there and take it, and thank the person doing it for taking the time and effort to shit in your mouth.

Imagine this kind of reaction in any other industry. It'd be laughable.

I think a lot of it comes down to mindset tbh. Ultimately we are all customers at the end of the day but a lot of people do seem more than happy to throw themselves under the Bus of 'fan' thereby seemingly relinquishing any rights towards criticism and admonishing those who dare to take issue with things. I don't think the attitude of the gaming press has helped much at times in this regard :-

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-11-why-devs-owe-you-nothing

With their constant infantiizing of 'gamer's criticisms and strict adherence to the idea that 'X developer' can do no wrong. To err is certainly human and forgive is divine, but the latter can only occur when the former has been acknowledged. You'd be hard pressed to find any film critics who'd defend the 'vision' of George Lucas when it comes to the Star Wars prequels, or the 'brilliance' of Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus' at the end of the day.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.