|
It's okay, if Legion dies it shows up as a virtually identical model in ME3. Only Shepard's response to it is different. Asking for the kind of branching continuity that some players seemed to want is asking too much. Very soon that would require creating significant assets that 50% of the playerbase isn't even going to see. You'd end up over time and over budget or with a significantly shorter game experience. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Aug 18, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's okay, if Legion dies it shows up as a virtually identical model in ME3. Only Shepard's response to it is different. On average 80 - 90% of the people who buy your game will not finish it, so any art assets at the end of the game are already being unseen by the vast majority of the people who bought your game. While I agree that genuine branching continuity is asking a lot I don't think it's asking too much. What it will probably require is another decade or so of development before people are willing to invest in story over graphics but I hold hope that someone will come up with something eventually. e: Though I suppose Planescape: Torment counts, so it's already happened once which means it should be able to happen again! Neruz fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Asking for the kind of branching continuity that some players seemed to want is asking too much. Very soon that would require creating significant assets that 50% of the playerbase isn't even going to see. You'd end up over time and over budget or with a significantly shorter game experience. This only barely worked for CYOA books, and those didn't even really need an art budget except for the cover. But yeah, games fork at the end into situations like Deus Ex's ending-o-tron machine because doing the last ten minutes three times is a lot cheaper than doing the last fifteen hours three times. I think Mass Effect might've been able to do it if the developers had been a little more hardline about saying "nope, you hosed up". Games these days seem very, very reluctant to actually punish a player for failing in any way. As we've seen, letting Mordin or Wrex die just causes the game to spawn Not-Mordin and Not-Wrex in their place. If the game actually had the balls to say, for example, "You let Jack die in ME2, so Grissom Academy got nuked in double-time, you don't get to do that mission and have lost all the war assets you could've got from it" it might've gone some of the way to making the player feel like they had an actual impact on the world. Because let's be honest, the suicide mission might've been a hamfisted, badly implemented way of making your choices matter, but the requirements for saving everyone weren't exactly esoteric. Jack has been shoved into your face all game as THE BEST BIOTIC AROUND in neon lights and then the final mission calls for someone with extreme biotic powers? Square peg, square hole. The loyalty mission part was bad, but it could've been gotten around in a number of ways, such as the characters approaching you themselves to ask for help and set the missions up, instead of leaving a post-it note with your assistant who you always ignore anyway. Them directly telling you that it was bothering them and that it might affect their performance when push comes to shove, instead of it being noted in mission reports or whatever. Hell even TIM saying directly to you "you need these people on-side, see if there's any favours or anything you can do for them, work that Shepard charm" would help. The other part would've been to actually make Galactic Readiness matter for poo poo beyond just which minor variant of the ending scene you get when you press the button at the ending-o-tron. Actually making the final level harder if your readiness was low, or making it possible to fail outright if you were really bad at the game, would make it feel like your preparation, or lack thereof, affected something. If you get the Boomers on-side during Fallout NV, they actually show up at the end in person and can be visibly seen blowing poo poo up. If you ignore or kill them, they don't show up. Simple. Even something like "if you finish the Leviathan DLC you get to see a Leviathan duel a Reaper at the final battle, and maybe that Reaper then doesn't blow up the building you were gonna run through and force you to find another way around" and that other way around involved a massive pile of Husks or a mid-boss you'd have to slog through or something, that would work. That would feel like you'd Done a Thing and Things Happened in response. But because games are so against letting players fail, and because they feel the need to parade the entireity of their assets past everyone's nose whether they like it or not, we get Not-Mordin and Not-Wrex, and docked a few points on our ultimately meaningless points scale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Oh yeah I know the actual in-game reasons that determine whether characters live or die in the final sequence are stupid but on the other hand there is no logical reason why Shepard wouldn't send Legion into the ducts; he is objectively the best choice from an in-character perspective. Because Legion is a sniper bot who feels no pain, only kickback from its anti-material rifle and Shepard might want Legion watching his back as he and another guy run to the door with a lot of Collectors shooting at them? But have you considered Thane? He's pretty good at moving through vents too 
SgtSteel91 fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
You lost a viewer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Neruz posted:e: Though I suppose Planescape: Torment counts, so it's already happened once which means it should be able to happen again! The Infinity Engine was probably Bioware's best shot at giving players meaningful choices, because the content costs were so low. I haven't played PS:T, but I remember in BG2 you could ally with either the Shadow Thieves or Bodhi. Both paths had different quests. Not chasing better graphics can also contribute to better modelling (in the simulation sense). See games like Nethack, Dwarf Fortress and SS13.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Lt. Danger, I have enjoyed your thorough analysis up until this point. It was fascinating. I don't think you could have found a more condescending, smug, insufferable way to present this idea of yours. That is, the idea that there is one right way to enjoy and appreciate all fiction. Completely discarding the medium, of course, which in this case is interactive, practically demanding that the player (not reader, not viewer) invest a bit of themselves into the story. As others have pointed out, one of the big focuses of the franchise is characters, so I could easily say that you are the one approaching this work of fiction incorrectly. The creators want you to focus on the characters and relationships and get upset when they die, and by refusing to do that, you are missing the point. Obviously they could have executed this better; see: dead characters getting replaced by surrogates. Sort of undermines the character-focus goal just a bit. Also, if you would like to make a point in the future, perhaps you should avoid trawling the internet for the worst examples of forum posts that you can find. It's like clubbing a baby seal, if you were able to get a baby seal and a club delivered to your home in under a second any time you wanted, and it doesn't actually support any argument you're making. Unless the argument you're making is, "The internet contains some really dumb/sexist/racist/insert-any-adjective-here people" or "some people take things too far." Presenting those quotes to represent "fans" as a whole is violently disingenuous, at best. I absolutely love every other video that you've made for this LP, even the ones that contain things I disagree with. The in-depth technical analysis is great, great stuff. This is not. This is you telling your audience how much better you are than they. I sincerely hope that you go back to analyzing the game, instead of its players. Also, let me add my own middle finger to the crowd of others regarding your "It's just my opinion" nonsense. Were you drunk? Maybe next video you could put in some orchestra sting and screamer jump scares, if you are trying to chase your viewers away. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
That video got confusing pretty quickly. I get that trawling through the dark corners of Bioware fan threads might have inspired some hatred, but there's hardly need to unleash it on your viewers. I agree with FullLeatherJacket, you began to sound like there are only two ways to approach the story and its characters. One parallel to the 'expanded universe' stuff you talked about in the beginning is the Halo series. Since the first game introduced a couple of mysteries, people who got into the story did a lot of speculation. I suppose this fed the creation of a lot of spin-off books that were all incorporated to the story. By the third game I started to have trouble following or caring about the story, since so much of it happened outside of the games in the books I didn't read. Of course, none of the huge buildup eventually went anywhere as far as I recall. I'm curious where you'll be going with Grunt being dead. It certainly fits better with the 'there will be casualties' -theme you emphasized in the beginning, but I wonder what else you think it might signify. 'The krogans are destructive' seems like a small problem when someone else is already taking over the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
wow...that rant came off as really pretentious and self serving...and it went on and on and on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
not posted:I think it ultimately comes down to asset costs. In this regard, the quest for better and better graphics is making games worse, because it drives content costs up and makes it harder to justify including content that not all players will see. That's why I say it will probably take awhile before publishers are comfortable spending money on story rather than graphics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
It's funny you should say that because the 360/PS3 generation was the longest console generation ever and graphics were only able to make marginal improvements for almost 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:so I could easily say that you are the one approaching this work of fiction incorrectly. The creators want you to focus on the characters and relationships and get upset when they die, and by refusing to do that, you are missing the point. Quoting myself to clarify a point. This is not my stance. I don't believe there is a wrong way to enjoy a given work of fiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Quoting myself to clarify a point. This is not my stance. I don't believe there is a wrong way to enjoy a given work of fiction. You are having fun the wrong way!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
I don't know what the problem is, I thought it was funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:This was the first video I really watched and I don't think I'm going to watch any more. I can't articulate why but I felt offended(?) with a lot of what you said and I strongly disagree.  FullLeatherJacket posted:I think you're at risk of presenting a false dichotomy here. It starts to suggest that the only avenues available are autistic obsession with technical detail, or doing this. Waltzing Along posted:You lost a viewer. Che Delilas posted:Lt. Danger, I have enjoyed your thorough analysis up until this point. It was fascinating. Godna posted:wow...that rant came off as really pretentious and self serving...and it went on and on and on. e: removed a few quotes that didn't deserve this response. sorry! it's all a silly joke! Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Hoo boy this nosedived fast and hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
So I knew I'd upset a lot of people with this update. It's hard to find a polite way to say "you're doing this wrong". There's a couple of fairly deliberate Lee doesn't use straight-up gags very often - he usually prefers to play around with ideas, turns of phrase, and will often run them into the ground in order to really test the limits of humour. There's a segment where he reads out negative internet reviews of his shows over soft jazz which is really funny. I'm not nearly as funny, I'm not a comedian, but I chose Unfunny as the thread tag for a reason. Lee's aware that his comedy is fairly niche and doesn't appeal to everyone. He makes a point of putting both positive reviews (largely from left-leaning intellectual broadsheet newspapers) and negative reviews (from low-brow tabloid newspapers) on his promotional material as a warning; he lets people know that if they're just looking for someone to make funny jokes and tell quick little anecdotes, to just have a 'good night out', then he's not for them. It saves him a lot of heckling and saves his potential audience a wasted night out. This is the point, then, of this update. With the utmost respect, if your primary concern or main interest is in the characters or the universe, if you're not interested in what all this dumb computer game poo poo means, then these videos aren't really for you. Like, you can watch them or not, not my decision, but I'm just fundamentally going about this in a way that isn't going to appeal to you and is just gonna be frustrating. In about twenty videos' time I'm going to talk about the ending, and I don't want a whole bunch of people to pipe up with "But what about the characters?!" or "What happened to the setting?!" only for me to dismiss everything they're interested in with "What about them?" This isn't that kind of reading. Better that I warn people off now with a mean video early on than let us get all the way to the end and just repeat the Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Thread all over again. In real life I don't care, I'll watch anything and feel all sad over characters dying or be happy when they get what they want, and I don't care how people do things. My best and closest friend reads all the terrible franchise fiction and gets really into the lore of stuff, and I know he'd hate this update too. But this isn't real life. This is Let's Play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Actually you have provided a lot of interesting character insight...I just think that you made a poor choice taking up an entire video with a rant that you don't like the way some people enjoy their free time.  This is just free entertainment to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, the only reason I've been following this thread was for when Lt. Danger'd finally snap at all the folks disagreeing with him, wasn't disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
I love everyone and think everyone should just do what makes them happy. But for the purposes of this thread, there is only one way to enjoy things and that is my way. I actually agree with what a lot of people have said, even if I dismissed them with a Benny Russell gif. There's a lot to be had from analysing this kind of paradox of fiction - the tension between believing something that isn't real, that only has significance because you know it isn't real. And there's nothing as soulless, as boring as a text that doesn't do anything other than announce, over and over, what it is supposed to be about. But I think this is all down to fundamental differences in philosophy, like I said. I need people to get on board with this particular philosophy for a critical reading, because otherwise we'll just spend all our time talking about how ME3 didn't give us what we really wanted as an audience - some fun, some entertainment, some laughs and tears. Which isn't wrong, I'm not going to argue that it doesn't, but at the same time I'm not going to argue that it should or shouldn't. That's a discussion that's beyond me. Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
It's okay man, not everyone can handle criticism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:It's okay man, not everyone can handle criticism. Exactly my point! 
Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
I know! It's great, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
I don't mind your opinions, but intertextually referencing Seth Macfarlane was insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Eagerly looking forward to Let's Watch Let's Play Mass Effect 3, in which some unfortunate goon explains to the forums how Lt Danger succeeded at making a good and thematically-sound LP, even if it wasn't the LP the fans wanted. The "just my opinion" segment symbolises Kai Leng.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
meatbag posted:I don't mind your opinions, but intertextually referencing Seth Macfarlane was insufferable. I don't know what that is. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Actually, while I do some editing, I'd like to suggest people watch that episode of Deep Space Nine "Far Beyond the Stars" for a non-dick exploration of these kinds of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
I've played past the first encounter with Kai Leng at this point and I have to say, his character so far is exactly the sort of smug weeaboo motherfucker whose face you'd love to smash. So it must be something later that ruins him. I love his Chinese name, Japanese sword, and cyborg squinty eyes though. If Garrus is a Turian foil for Shepard, Kai Leng is Shepard as poorly written loser.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I love everyone and think everyone should just do what makes them happy. Hey dude, I hope you continue with your great work and I'm entirely on board with your philosophy and I bet so are a lot of other people here. But the rant went on too long, just accept that. It was a very alienating attempt at involving your viewers in the approach you want to take. You're free to make your videos however you want, but then again we're also free to tell you it was a really weird way of doing it and I hope you got it out of your system now. EDIT: To put it simply, it just isn't fun or educational or insightful to hear a simple argument being stretched out way longer than you needed to drive it home. That's all there really was to it. NeilPerry fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Fedule posted:Given how little Grunt's death changes, pretty much the sole difference between one branch and the other is that a character has or has not died and you will or will not be periodically reminded of this. With that in mind, is it really any wonder that people consider these character deaths failure on the part of the player? What other criterion is there by which to judge these decisions? It's not as though either option is really any more or less interesting than the other (Not-Mordin and Not-Wrex excluded); the only two way left to frame it are either Doing ME2 Right vs Not Doing That or Keeping ~My Favourite Character~ Alive vs Not Doing That. In the end, I think it boils down to two things, more fundamental than "character X is written to be sympathetic" or "there's no rhyme or reason to character X' death". The first is that consumers of anything, including fiction, typically desire more of what they like until the point where they stop liking it. If a character the consumer enjoys (for whatever reason) is killed, it leaves the consumer desiring more but unable to get it. It causes frustration, anger, even profound sadness. Being able to put things into perspective is good and advisable, obviously, but the basic response seems natural to me. The second issue was already addressed to some extent by FoolyCharged and Heatwizard, but I'd like to elaborate on that a little. The goal of computer games, with very very very few exceptions, is to win. More specifically, the goal of almost every computer game is to perform as well as you can, and to defeat all the challenges it throws at you. This includes the deaths of non-enemy characters (and sometimes even the deaths of actual enemies), if it's possible to avoid them. This is reinforced further by presenting the player with specific challenges that decide whether or not a certain character will die. ME2 pushes the player to do Grunt's loyalty mission. Complete it, and refrain from making silly mistakes in the suicide mission, and Grunt will survive both ME2 and ME3. Failing to complete the loyalty mission means sentencing Grunt to death. And because Grunt's death does not serve any greater purpose, something that outweighs the importance of his survival in terms of the game's objectives, it can only be concluded that the game has been played sub-optimally - that the player has lost some part of the game. Compare this to having to sacrifice either Kaidan or Ashley on Virmire; artificial though this dilemma may be, and possibly not much of a dilemma at all, I think it's important that the sacrifice ensures the destruction of Saren's base. Losing a squaddie is always a loss in some way, but in Virmire's case it is presented as essential to winning the game. Even if it does not satisfy the player's desire to see more of Kaidan/Ashley (if such a desire exists), at least it manages to largely satisfy the desire to complete the game as best as possible. Losing Grunt, but even moreso Wrex or Mordin, fails in both respects, and I believe that's ultimately why many players understandably dislike it when that happens in their games. All this being said, I do feel there's a difference between not wanting to "fail" in your own playthrough and taking exception to someone else knowingly failing in their public playthrough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
NeilPerry posted:I bet so are a lot of other people here A lot aren't, though, and I want them to stop watching. I am sorry that people were annoyed or felt put upon by the last update, but I'm not actually trying to convince anyone to see things my way. The critical response is sort of like the minimum buy-in for the thread and this point is the toll-gate. It sounds weak, I know, but it's supposed to be alienating. Now that I've addressed it for a second time (because nobody ever reads the OP) it shouldn't come up again. And at least one or two found it kind of funny. e: not disagreeing with you, you're absolutely right, just to be clear e2: whoops, should say that I will refer back to this stuff later, just not gonna go into the same patronising detail Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I am sorry that people were annoyed or felt put upon by the last update, but I'm not actually trying to convince anyone to see things my way. quote:This LP is gonna be all about me trying to re-sell Mass Effect 3 to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
No, that's fair, and people have mentioned it before. But I think a lot of this is a fundamental difference in philosophy. I strongly believe art (low-brow or high-brow, it doesn't matter) is about communication, about opening a dialogue between artist and audience(s). Lots of people, quite fairly, believe art is about entertainment, about causing pleasure or cathartic release in the audience. If you prefer the latter philosophy, I don't think there's much I can or should say to convince you otherwise. I think ME3 works either way, but in the latter case works on a level that most of that audience isn't interested in and is too far removed from what they are interested in. I don't think I can sell people that. I don't really want to have that argument because nobody's gonna win and nobody's really right or wrong and it'll no longer be about ME3. My values in this reading are what's useful or interesting, not so much what's 'true' or 'correct'. The 'true' response is that there's a million ways to approach a text and they're all fine, in conclusion aesthetics is a philosophy of contrasts. The 'useful' response is that this is the specific approach we're taking in this thread and other approaches are marginal at best. Also I lied; marketing lies. I quoted TIM in the title for a reason. Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
This is the best soapbox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Did you play The Witcher?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Um... Okay, I think I owe Lt. Danger an apology. I'm not sure for what, although I think it's because my posts are a little weird, and might be dealing with something complete;y different from what Lt. Danger is looking at. On the other hand, I do want to challenge your statement that asking for immersion is a waste of the medium. In fact, I rather think that the opposite is true. Games are not films. They are not literature. They have stories, but they are not the stories themselves. And this is the crux of the issue. It is all well and good to note what Bioware is trying to do, and you should be commended for this. I applaud your dedication in using the choices you did in order to reinforce your reading of Bioware's story. But games are interactive, and in this case, that's a a selling point. Bioware sold this story on the idea that your choices matter, that your actions have consequences, an the simple truth is that by doing so, they have given the player agency. Once this transfer of power occurs, the player has a say not only in the details of the world, but also in the themes. The problem thus becomes that players, on the whole, choose options that emphasise their ideas of what the themes should be, and these clash with the themes that the developers are attempting to tell through their story. For anyone who doesn't frequent the Traditional Games subforum, there is a thread known as grognards.txt. it's exactly as it sounds, a thread to laugh at lovely opinions. But one of the biggest focuses of said grognardism is the idea of 'DM fiat', where the controller of the game, in this case Bioware, has an idea of how the story should go, and, because of their control over the setting and details, can force the players into a particular path. And if the DM does this, why bother playing? The fiction will turn out, regardless of your actions. In essence, you have turned a game into a film, and its players instead into passive watchers, who, instead of participating in and helping to create the story (and its themes) are forced to witness whatever the DM desires. That is a lovely way to make or play a game. And in Bioware's position, it means that the story itself can become disjointed and bipolar, vacillating between themes and concepts depending on how much agency the player has in this instance. I was going to analyze Mass Effect 3 in order to understand why people didn't like it, and Lt. Danger has hit the nail on the head. A lot of people are concerned with setting details, with characters and fights, rather than themes. But I would point out the arguments that the thread had when comparing Mass Effect 2 to the Empire Strikes Back. Because Mass Effect 2 isn't the Empire Strikes Back. Mass Effect 3 is. Challenges, Loss, Revelation; these are all things that Mass Effect 3 and Empire have in common. Our heroes experience trials, both physically(Reapers/Empire attacks) and mentally (The Revelation of Luke's Father/Shepard's PTSD and current problem of getting the universe together). And in the end, there is a loss of some kind, something that must be sacrificed to achieve victory, in whatever form it takes. But if you look at it from this perspective, it doesn't make any sense, and most people did that. By being 'Commander Shepard, Space Jesus, Badass and Guy who says 'gently caress You' to the odds', you're reinforcing the reading that Mass Effect is like Star Wars. If Star Wars ended with the Empire Strikes Back, then the story doesn't end, or make sense. It has no impact, no lessons, there is no triumph. You(the character) are a better person, having overcome the personal challenges in front of you, but the overall concept is still real and must be dealt with. And with two games in which this occurs, a lot of people are disappointed that the final installment doesn't allow you to do that. Mass Effect 3 is a good game, And I look forward to everything that Lt. Danger is doing with it, because he will make it shine. I look forward to hearing more from your reading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
While I rather strongly disagree with your perspective on fiction, I appreciate the importance of making your stance on it known for the sake of your analysis. It is your reading and your interpretation; expressing the way that you read and interpret the work is necessary if your audience is to appreciate your take. Nothing wrong with expressing yourself in your own thread, however harshly. Keep up the great work!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Once I was in a skype call with a guy who was going through one of the kingdom hearts wikis. It had individual pages for each of the weapons in the series, and one of those pages was for the wooden stick from a mission halfway through 358 Days where the gimmick is that you're stuck with the near-zero damage stick instead of your chosen weapon. It really bothered him that there was a web page set aside for a wooden stick, and so for a laugh I sat down and briefly researched and composed roughly two paragraphs on that wiki page touching on the chemical composition of wood, and a rough guess as to what kind of wood it would be given the clues that it's Japanese video game, but also the discarded stick is found discarded on the ground in a service hallway of Beast's European castle, and that the wood is hard enough to use as a weapon. I settled on zelkova serrata, a Japanese street tree which was adopted outside the country, notably in the UK, due to its resistance to Dutch elm disease. Because there wasn't a lot of plant life around the castle during the game, and the stick in question was found discarded in a service hallway, I supposed that it was thrown out, demonstrating Beast's disillusionment with the world outside his own domain and tying into 358's recurring elements of abandonment, protecting what you hold dear at the cost of the thing you're protecting, and the dichotomy between the natural and unnatural world. You can spend four hours identifying and pontificating over the themes in Mass Effect, but the mere presence of themes doesn't imply any inherent value to the work, because it's very possible to sit down and analyze garbage. Hell, there's a whole college course about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Heatwizard posted:You can spend four hours identifying and pontificating over the themes in Mass Effect, but the mere presence of themes doesn't imply any inherent value to the work, because it's very possible to sit down and analyze garbage. Hell, there's a whole college course about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 15:39
|
|