Originally posted by Astor EbligisI love me some ME and the story.
Just surprised, I had thought you were a gigantic ME fangirl.
But while it's a pretty entertaining story, I won't pretend it's a super original or inspired one, like, say, Bioshock was (The paragon of gaming metafiction, that I can recall anyway).
Originally posted by NephthysI don't know. I haven't played it.
But didn't Neb just say that Xenogears is about Oedipus which has long been regarded as utter bullshit by most psychologists? I mean, whats the applicability of an AI wanting to put back together and an omnipresent being from a higher dimension?
Originally posted by Nephthys
1 And you only played the 1st Mass Effect.
I am mostly solely interested in comparing ME1 to the Xeno games.
2 + 3: Irrelevant, the story should stand on it's own regardless.
2. Not at all, you really think reading a Wikipedia article on Mass Effect will have the same impact on actually playing the game properly? The presentation, pacing and structure of the story greatly influence how you appreciate it.
3. Again, not true. Firstly, I'm guessing you watched a Let's Play with some goofy commentator cracking jokes and narrating the dialogue in some silly voice. Well that's going to present the game in a completely different tone to simply playing the game on your own with nothing to distract you or the background music. Also, the pacing is completely different when you simply watch the story cutscenes and skip the gameplay, which I'm guessing you also did. A gameplay/story mix creates a number of different feelings in the player that videogame academics have explored that colour how you appreciate both. For example, the space between cutscenes, filled by gameplay, creates the feeling of time passing between events, and psychologically speaking you usually link the gameplay segments with an intermediary storyline context. Seeing a cutscene of your party entering a dungeon, followed immediately by a cutscene of your party just having killed a boss for example, creates a very disjointed feeling and it is simply not how the cutscenes were designed with pacing in mind. You also miss out on a lot of the anticipation of the next cutscene you have while playing a gameplay segment, much like when you watch a season finale of a show that ends on a cliffhanger and then immediately watch the first episode of the next season (to be fair mostly everyone does this, no matter that they are doing themselves a disservice). Lastly, I know you never got to experience this, but Xenogears does some really interesting stuff on disc 2 that relies on you actually playing the game. Basically, in disc 2 it goes through a gigantic period where you basically just watch cutscene after cutscene and play minimal gameplay, and it's where a lot of the really tragic stuff happens in the world that your characters are powerless to stop, and it creates that same feeling in the player. That# the kind of storytelling convention that uniquely utilises the property of videogames, and it's something you miss out on in a let's play.
4. No, I went in with you and everyone talking about it being an amazing game and came away with my expectations not met.
If you say so, but you had debated how it could possibly be as good as I was describing numerous times before playing it, and it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't go into it with the best mindset.
Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
As it stands, I maintain I can make somewhat of an accurate prediction as to the quality of Mass Effect 2 and 3; I'm familiar with the first game which was made by largely the same people and put into place certain fundamental elements that would remain throughout the series, I can see that ME 1 was received in a comparably favourable manner to 2 and that 3 was widely considered disappointing.
No you really can't. And ME2 is considered by most to be the high point of the series, not ME1.
Originally posted by Nephthys
But didn't Neb just say that Xenogears is about Oedipus which has long been regarded as utter bullshit by most psychologists? I mean, whats the applicability of an AI wanting to put back together and an omnipresent being from a higher dimension?
Real world humanity =/= the humanity seen in Xenogears. Xenoegars' humanity was specifically created by Deus out of his desire to return to a state of oneness, Abel and Elly were tasked with returning TWE to a state of oneness, and Abel came to love -The Mother- as a son, and then later came to love Elly, who was a part of -The Mother- and still strongly resembled her physically, in a romantic way, both in the same lifetime. To those ends, mirroring humanity, Abel's incarnation, and the resolution of the conflict on the Oedipus complex is absolutely appropriate.
Originally posted by ares834
No you really can't.
That's simply not true, you can absolutely make accurate predictions based on such limited data, it doesn't have to be a definitive prediction.
Interestingly enough, I'd imagine you would fully agree if we were talking about some music act that you found particularly shitty.
And ME2 is considered by most to be the high point of the series, not ME1.
I understand that but I haven't come across many who would say it was an absolutely drastic improvement (it would have to be a movement from "good" to "genius" for 2 and 3 to be on par with the Xeno games).
I really don't see why you guys find it so hard to believe that you can believe with some level of probability that subsequent entries in the same series by mostly the same developers wouldn't go through such an astronomical leap in quality, especially when their respective critical and public reception would suggest as much.
Originally posted by Astor EbligisYou can make whatever prediction you want based on whatever you want.
That's simply not true, you can absolutely make accurate predictions based on such limited data, it doesn't have to be a definitive prediction.Interestingly enough, I'd imagine you would fully agree if we were talking about some music act that you found particularly shitty.
Doesn't make it accurate.
Originally posted by Astor EbligisYou're judging the quality of separate video-games on a grasp of "statistics" and nebulously "acting" on it.
Sure it doesn't. Having a good grasp of statistics and acting on it is what does.
The hell does that even mean? What statistics are you using that "accurately" determine the quality of a sequel to an older game? And what do you "act on" to come to accuracy in said prediction?
Sentence structure. Syntax. Make work gooderer.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Statistics would say that making a prediction based off of data that you know changes, without being aware of what those changes are, nets an inaccurate prediction.
So you can never make an accurate prediction, seeing as a prediction is by definition based off of data you you're not aware of?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're judging the quality of separate video-games on a grasp of "statistics" and nebulously "acting" on it.The hell does that even mean? What statistics are you using that "accurately" determine the quality of a sequel to an older game? And what do you "act on" to come to accuracy in said prediction?
I's pretty simple and I've already explained my thought process. When you're familiar with a certain person or team's existing performance, and you have evidence that would strongly suggest that subsequent performances haven't been vastly superior, you can use your personal assessment of their existing performances as an indicator of how their subsequent performances would have likely been, regardless of whether you are familiar with those subsequent performances or not.
It's pretty simple and not to be rude but if you disagree with that at this point you simply have a very poor grasp of statistics (not to mention are in all likelihood a hypocrite, as I'd imagine you make such projections and believe them with likelihood all the time).
Sentence structure. Syntax. Make work gooderer.
🙄