That film critic hulk review is still one of the worst critical pieces I've ever read. Even aside from the gimmick, it's still large parts "anyone who doesn't like this ending is dumb" while also making the argument that cycles are an inspiring and uplifting thing, which uh...I don't know where he got that from, but it wasn't Mass Effect.
That film critic hulk review is still one of the worst critical pieces I've ever read. Even aside from the gimmick, it's still large parts "anyone who doesn't like this ending is dumb" while also making the argument that cycles are an inspiring and uplifting thing, which uh...I don't know where he got that from, but it wasn't Mass Effect.
This is a huge mischaracterization. He admits in his follow up that he shouldn't have lumped people in groups the way he did (but the point about entitlement still stands. You gotta remember that he made that post while people were literally telling a studio to fucking change an ending which is damned absurd), but he certainly didn't say that cycles are inspiring. Rather that the game engages with the inevitability of cycles and how to make peace with them.
Honestly I really don't like the combative approach to criticism where everyone seems to approach things at an angle of "Here's this thing I like and agree with" and "HERE'S THIS FUCKIN' BULLSHIT"
so we got an email for a filesharing violation from PenTeleData
[12:30:30 AM] Magic Jane: I have no idea about what, exactly
[12:31:42 AM] Magic Jane: now granted I download and torrent things all the time
[12:31:53 AM] Magic Jane: but usually you only get that kind of thing if you put something up to be downloaded
[12:31:56 AM] Magic Jane: and that, well I haven't done that
[12:31:58 AM] Magic Jane: so I'm confused
[12:41:25 AM] Magic Jane: apparently the company that sent us the notice (Rightscorp Inc.) basically tries to scare people into giving them money by threatening to sue unless they pay a $20 fee
[12:45:33 AM] Magic Jane: I should probably just get a Spotify account I guess
Okay, I have counterpoints, Kex, but I'm tired and we're working off of different definitions of what makes for a good ending, so let's just...not continue this. this is the only way i can see this ending well for either of us.
I'm just saying that as someone who writes seeing an ending that resonated so damned well with me to the point where I was on the verge of tears and knowing the bitterness like everyone has to it for what are mostly- and I'm sure you'd agree- very childish or at least extremely poorly articulated reasons really gets me down.
What aspect of it is mature, though? Name me some criticism that engages with the work thematically rather than nitpicking logic, or simply being a cry for indulgence.
Because I'll reiterate that a lot of the time the video game choices that feel like they matter the most often don't have any visible impact. Why else would people spend hours customizing a face, or labor over which functionally identical piece of Devil Survivor dialogue they feel fits them best? Why has no one criticized, say, Spec Ops for not even pretending that its choices aren't illusory?
What aspect of it is mature, though? Name me some criticism that engages with the work thematically rather than nitpicking logic, or simply being a cry for indulgence.
...the one on the last page that criticizes ME3 for only giving choices realistic consequences at the ending instead of interspersing them throughout the game(s) so the player isn't blackjacked when one comes up at the ending with no real warning?
What aspect of it is mature, though? Name me some criticism that engages with the work thematically rather than nitpicking logic, or simply being a cry for indulgence.
...the one on the last page that criticizes ME3 for only giving choices realistic consequences at the ending instead of interspersing them throughout the game(s) so the player isn't blackjacked when one comes up at the ending with no real warning?
The one I wrote?
Is that even a criticism of the ending, though? Because it looks like your criticism amounts to "This aspect is compelling which is incongruous to the less compelling aspects of the series." I can understand wanting consistency, but your approach is kind of ass backwards if you criticize the better parts for not being in line with the worse parts.
Furthermore an ending doesn't have to be in step with the previous tone of the story. Transformative endings that, yes, blackjack a player into recontextualizing previous events are a very powerful device. The trick is that such an ending has to do things other than tie up loose ends and show how clever the writer is for witholding the meaning of the work (my issue with JJ Abrams and the "mystery box").
Meanwhile Mass Effect hints at its major themes constantly but diverts the players attention with smaller themes and arcs, and it finally comes full circle when the fog is cleared and you're finally given a chance to contextualize all that's happened and implement this slowly built understanding into one final decision. There's no implicit condemnation for not being able to put the pieces together, nor is the "reveal" intended to be some kind of reward. Rather, it encourages major investment into its world of blacks and whites but then gives you three grays to work with at the very end because with Shepard finally stepping back, it makes sense that black and white would blend together from a distance.
And even if it is blackjacking the player, it is done with ample windup, and only went unseen because everyone was focused on the knife in the other hand.
I agree that choice over the course of the series choice wasn't handled in a particularly deep way, but within the basic framework of the story (outside of player interaction) everything about the ending was properly set up. The marketing and fandom clouded that, but that isn't the fault of the work itself.
Furthermore an ending doesn't have to be in step with the previous tone of the story.
No it doesn't have to be but a lot of people understandably don't like it when it's not.
You need to understand here most people here (and everywhere) have zero aspiration of being a critic. Something can be well-made without being enjoyable. You are thinking everyone is saying that it's not well-made, some are just saying it's not enjoyable.
You should all watch American History X if you have the chance. It's rare in that it's a glimpse into an oppressive system from the perspective of the oppressor, and it shows how it takes a toll on even their psychological state.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
The thing about American History X is that once someone told me that I should bite the curb, and I complained that I didn't know what that meant. Then the mods started telling the guy to stop, because not everyone knows what "biting the curb" means.
So, it's okay to say; "I want to kill you brutally" as long as everyone knows what you're talking about.
I've never seen anyone claim anything other than thinking the ending is good or bad. I'm debating this not just because I think it's an effective ending but because I think it's a valuable one. I think the nature of the final choice requires a lot of thought and allows players to come out of the experience having learned something about themselves and that people dismiss it for not enjoying it is upsetting to me.
I'm having trouble engaging with your idea that a work can be "for" critics. The only comparison I can think of is, like, what if I said Napoleon was my favorite leader, and you presented me with a bunch of European history showing that Napoleon isn't the genius he's often made out to be. Like, my surface level interpretation of that figure surely isn't as informed and valid as yours. I'm not saying I'm an authority on art or anything, but there are levels of expertise understanding etc. to this just as there are to many other things. And the distinction between a casual viewer and a "critic" is a difference of expertise, not methodology. Appealing to lesser expertise and sacrificing that appeal for people with more understanding isn't catering to different demographics, it's pandering.*
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I think you can totally pander to critics, because art critics tend to be drawn from certain socioeconomic groups, demographics, and usually have similar educations.
It's called 'market segmentation'. You divide the population by their similarities and then find the cross-section of people you want to target with your product.
He called me a gook and I swore to hound him through all his rebirths.
Look at the 'irc-misadventures' tag on my blog.
Hahaha, oh wow.
Did he miss the point of the movie, the one where people like him are just ineffectually trying to deal with aggression and ruining their own lives as a result?
I've never seen anyone claim anything other than thinking the ending is good or bad. I'm debating this not just because I think it's an effective ending but because I think it's a valuable one. I think the nature of the final choice requires a lot of thought and allows players to come out of the experience having learned something about themselves and
I have not played Mass Effect 3 and have absolutely no desire to do so, I think you may be not entirely understanding that point.
(also most people do not verbally distinguish between "well crafted by the standards of the artform" and "enjoyable to me, personally", but I digress)
that people dismiss it for not enjoying it is upsetting to me.
Have you considered that that is a problem with you.
I'm having trouble engaging with your idea that a work can be "for" critics.
I did not say that. What I said is that different people enjoy things on different levels.
There is no objective truth in art, and there will never be. Your assertion that people somehow have to like the ending of a video game is--essentially--an assertion that it is objectively good. That just isn't true.
You may argue up and down about how it is well-crafted--which is what Yarrun was trying to do--but I have no interest in that argument and am saying that for me personally it doesn't matter. For several reasons (I don't really care about that kind of storytelling in video games except in rare circumstances, I loathe BioWare as a company and don't think they've made a good game since Knights of The Old Republic, etc. etc. etc. etc.) I am just not interested in engaging with the work on that level, and what I believe you need to learn, is that that is not a problem, and you have no right to tell me what level I should be engaging with it on, which is what you are doing.
The only comparison I can think of is, like, what if I said Napoleon was my favorite leader, and you presented me with a bunch of European history showing that Napoleon isn't the genius he's often made out to be. Like, my surface level interpretation of that figure surely isn't as informed and valid as yours. I'm not saying I'm an authority on art or anything, but there are levels of expertise understanding etc. to this just as there are to many other things.
This simile is ridiculous. History and art are, inherently, very different things. You're comparing two different fields of study.
And the distinction between a casual viewer and a "critic" is a difference of expertise, not methodology. Appealing to lesser expertise and sacrificing that appeal for people with more understanding isn't catering to different demographics, it's pandering.*
*and no, the reverse is not true.
No, it is a difference of level of interest combined with experience combined with the desire to look at things as objectively as possible (you can't be truly objective about art, ever, as I said above). It is not a single thing.
There are critics that are very amateur, myself included (you will note that I run an admittedly amateurish game blog and occasionally review albums as well).
The idea, by the way, that things that are simpler or more accessible are inherently worse than things that are more complex or obtuse (which is what you appear to be saying here), is ludicrous.
also it is mind-boggling to me that we (in general terms) are still having this discussion however many years after Mass Effect 3 came out. I didn't really think anyone considered it a classic of its genre.
also it is mind-boggling to me that we (in general terms) are still having this discussion however many years after Mass Effect 3 came out. I didn't really think anyone considered it a classic of its genre.
???
It doesn't really matter how old a game is, just as long as it's ripe for discussion.
also it is mind-boggling to me that we (in general terms) are still having this discussion however many years after Mass Effect 3 came out. I didn't really think anyone considered it a classic of its genre.
???
It doesn't really matter how old a game is, just as long as it's ripe for discussion.
my question though is like
is it ripe for discussion?
I feel like those guys in their 40s you always see in the mall talking about Ghostbusters. A movie film that people still think is good, somehow.
Comments
Honestly I really don't like the combative approach to criticism where everyone seems to approach things at an angle of "Here's this thing I like and agree with" and "HERE'S THIS FUCKIN' BULLSHIT"
The water is not real water, it's the ocean.
-Mario-
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
tho it's pretty middle-of-the-road
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
it was beautiful and the mechanics were lovely and the dialogue was like smashing my own fingers w/ a ball peen hammer and it was so bad i stopped
Furthermore an ending doesn't have to be in step with the previous tone of the story. Transformative endings that, yes, blackjack a player into recontextualizing previous events are a very powerful device. The trick is that such an ending has to do things other than tie up loose ends and show how clever the writer is for witholding the meaning of the work (my issue with JJ Abrams and the "mystery box").
Meanwhile Mass Effect hints at its major themes constantly but diverts the players attention with smaller themes and arcs, and it finally comes full circle when the fog is cleared and you're finally given a chance to contextualize all that's happened and implement this slowly built understanding into one final decision. There's no implicit condemnation for not being able to put the pieces together, nor is the "reveal" intended to be some kind of reward. Rather, it encourages major investment into its world of blacks and whites but then gives you three grays to work with at the very end because with Shepard finally stepping back, it makes sense that black and white would blend together from a distance.
And even if it is blackjacking the player, it is done with ample windup, and only went unseen because everyone was focused on the knife in the other hand.
I agree that choice over the course of the series choice wasn't handled in a particularly deep way, but within the basic framework of the story (outside of player interaction) everything about the ending was properly set up. The marketing and fandom clouded that, but that isn't the fault of the work itself.
I'm having trouble engaging with your idea that a work can be "for" critics. The only comparison I can think of is, like, what if I said Napoleon was my favorite leader, and you presented me with a bunch of European history showing that Napoleon isn't the genius he's often made out to be. Like, my surface level interpretation of that figure surely isn't as informed and valid as yours. I'm not saying I'm an authority on art or anything, but there are levels of expertise understanding etc. to this just as there are to many other things. And the distinction between a casual viewer and a "critic" is a difference of expertise, not methodology. Appealing to lesser expertise and sacrificing that appeal for people with more understanding isn't catering to different demographics, it's pandering.*
*and no, the reverse is not true.
Look at the 'irc-misadventures' tag on my blog.
It's called 'market segmentation'. You divide the population by their similarities and then find the cross-section of people you want to target with your product.
So I think so, yes.
It doesn't really matter how old a game is, just as long as it's ripe for discussion.