Mass Effect 4 will have pronouns...and it will flop harder than Andromeda.

[TRIPLE A ®™]

All those people who were already legitimately worried about the game now have a valid reason for doing so. If you thought "top surgery scars" and stupid dialogue like characters immediately introducing themselves as non-binary were bad enough...you ain't seen nothing yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuIGduyLnXQ

well at least I can thank Bioware for saving me money. Bright side and everything, eh?

Inb4 someone says "it's just for the board game"...wishful thinking, lads.

[harken23]

Originally posted by sdack:

Originally posted by harken23:

Spoken by someone who SHOULD have gone to therapy, probably for more than ten years.

Originally posted by bayomaycry:

i think you need therapy if this is how you think

You two should go to therapy, even if only to get past your fear of it. Therapy is not a punishment. It helps people, and you two could use some help instead of posting silly knee-yerk comments. Just saying.

I'm currently IN therapy. I'm suggesting that he could do with it, also.

[sdack]

Originally posted by harken23:

I'm currently IN therapy. I'm suggesting that he could do with it, also.

Right. However, being in therapy does not make you the therapist. Finish it first, and see how you feel afterwards. Maybe when some time has passed and you do better will you find the opinions of others less offensive. People are allowed to have opinions on the topic, and they may not reflect one's own opinion. It is not a big deal.

[Wintermute]

Originally posted by Dwarven Runesmith:

Originally posted by Wintermute:

The pronoun people find ways to bastardize those languages too.

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with pronouns themselves. They just signify a soy dev team that is unable to tell an even slightly compelling story, because the biggest adversity they had in life was arguing with parents and going to therapy for the 10 years afterwards.

What does telling a compelling story has to do with personal life of theirs and the severity of their upbringing?

Because stories are told from life experience. You can pick some of it from books and movies, but the most heart-wrenching stuff always comes from the author's self. And the only thing that drives the story forward is conflict. Between characters, against world, doesn't matter. Conflict is the drive.

If author knows no personal conflict beyond "oh my god I got misgendered" - that's the level of drama he will invariably produce. It's boring. That's the biggest problem with soy storytelling. It's boring, it's cliche, all of it was done 20 years ago already and was done better.

Want an example - look at the Veilguard's Taash talking with her mother, and compare it to Dorian confronting his father in Inquisition. Similar themes. Both are "woke". Night and day difference in execution.

[bayomaycry]

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Originally posted by Dwarven Runesmith:

What does telling a compelling story has to do with personal life of theirs and the severity of their upbringing?

Because stories are told from life experience. You can pick some of it from books and movies, but the most heart-wrenching stuff always comes from the author's self. And the only thing that drives the story forward is conflict. Between characters, against world, doesn't matter. Conflict is the drive.

If author knows no personal conflict beyond "oh my god I got misgendered" - that's the level of drama he will invariably produce. It's boring. That's the biggest problem with soy storytelling. It's boring, it's cliche, all of it was done 20 years ago already and was done better.

Want an example - look at the Veilguard's Taash talking with her mother, and compare it to Dorian confronting his father in Inquisition. Similar themes. Both are "woke". Night and day difference in execution.

that's just like, your opinion man.

[Dwarven Runesmith]

Originally posted by sdack:

Many good stories come from life experiences. It is when a story is beyond one's own imagination that these then become interesting. When you have a sheltered life and are still young, lack experience, never faced adversity or difficulty, then you likely will find even a boring story interesting. So, yes, it very much matters. Take Tolkien for example. He was an English teacher who fought in the first world war. His life experiences allowed him to write Lord of the Rings. You could not make it up if you tried.

Stephen Crane wrote 'The Red Badge of Courage', a story based on civil war. Mind you this, he never was there, he never visited the places, he never heard even a gunshot.
But it stumped even veterans on how good his writing on war was.

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Because stories are told from life experience. You can pick some of it from books and movies, but the most heart-wrenching stuff always comes from the author's self. And the only thing that drives the story forward is conflict. Between characters, against world, doesn't matter. Conflict is the drive.

If author knows no personal conflict beyond "oh my god I got misgendered" - that's the level of drama he will invariably produce. It's boring. That's the biggest problem with soy storytelling. It's boring, it's cliche, all of it was done 20 years ago already and was done better.

Want an example - look at the Veilguard's Taash talking with her mother, and compare it to Dorian confronting his father in Inquisition. Similar themes. Both are "woke". Night and day difference in execution.

Life experience is one way to get inspiration and creative ideas for stories, but it doesn't translate to compelling stories.

To say that because a person only have conflict of "misgendered" and will only produce that type of quality is only based on your personal opinion and not a fact.
There are great writers of attractions but are virgins till death.
Where did you get the idea that only people with conflicts in their personal life can write anything beyond that?
Does that mean that if someone never experienced a conflict of betrayal can never produce such things in a compelling way? Does a writer who never experienced fantasy cannot write about characters conflict in such worlds?

Life experience can drive inspiration and ideas on how to write such things but some do not have life but have the skill and some do not have the skill but have life and both made good books. It just gives authors a way to express ideas by gaining life to have increased pond of inspiration. But it is not a rule of fact.
Because I know for sure that 40k authors do not have any experience of space combat or how one turns into a makeshift computer in the service of Emperor of mankind.

[sdack]

Originally posted by Dwarven Runesmith:

Stephen Crane wrote 'The Red Badge of Courage', a story based on civil war. Mind you this, he never was there, he never visited the places, he never heard even a gunshot.
But it stumped even veterans on how good his writing on war was. ...

It is just a tangent, and not actually the same. I said Tolkien used his war experience to write a great fantasy story. He did not write a war story. It was an example of how personal experience leads to good story writing. I believe this answers the original question.

What makes life experiences compelling is that these are based on facts and on truth. No matter how unbelievable a story might be, knowing it is real makes it interesting. On the other hand, knowing a story is not real makes us far more critical. If you believe this is not true then you need to come with more than a tangent and actually disprove it.

Just saying someone wrote an interesting story but did not use their own experience does not change this. Can a chimp write all of Shakespeare's works? Sure, in theory it can. Can someone without experience write a good story? Same thing. If they are a good listener and use the experiences of others then they might create a compelling story, but they might also create a lot of rubbish, and first need time to become a good writer. Your example of Stephen Crane shows this. He started writing at the age of 4, but was already 24 when he wrote his novel. He wrote many stories, including some containing his experiences. None of this changes that life experiences matter for good story writing.

And like I said, if you are still young and inexperienced, will just about any story seem interesting to you. You might even find Dragon Ball Z compelling. It is not just the experiences of the writer that matters, but the experiences of the audience matter, too.

[Dwarven Runesmith]

Originally posted by sdack:

What makes life experiences compelling is that these are based on facts and on truth. No matter how unbelievable a story might be, knowing it is real makes it interesting. On the other hand, knowing a story is not real makes us far more critical. If you believe this is not true then you need to come with more than a tangent and actually disprove it.

Regardless if they are based on facts or truths it mostly depends on persons interpretation. Two people can have same experience but have two different conclusions.
For the story, it depends on the person who reads it. Some unbelievable stories but base on truths can be both uninteresting and interesting. It depends on how it is told.

[sdack]

Originally posted by Dwarven Runesmith:

Regardless if they are based on facts or truths it mostly depends on persons interpretation. Two people can have same experience but have two different conclusions.
For the story, it depends on the person who reads it. Some unbelievable stories but base on truths can be both uninteresting and interesting. It depends on how it is told.

No. It matters whether a story is based on facts. You do not seem to understand that the experience of the audience matters. A child can only interpret a story. It has no experience to compare the story to. An adult may disagree with a story, find inconsistencies, and choose not to interpret it, because of their personal experience. This is what the current discussion is about.

Telling a story is much easier when it is based on true experiences. One simply tells the truth. One needs to be a good liar to tell a made-up story well. Some people will sense the lie regardless. They will spot inconsistencies in the lie, while a true story can have inconsistencies.

[Dwarven Runesmith]

Originally posted by sdack:

Originally posted by Dwarven Runesmith:

Regardless if they are based on facts or truths it mostly depends on persons interpretation. Two people can have same experience but have two different conclusions.
For the story, it depends on the person who reads it. Some unbelievable stories but base on truths can be both uninteresting and interesting. It depends on how it is told.

No. It matters whether a story is based on facts. You do not seem to understand that the experience of the audience matters. A child can only interpret a story. It has no experience to compare the story to. An adult may disagree with a story, find inconsistencies, and choose not to interpret it, because of their personal experience. This is what the current discussion is about.

Telling a story is much easier when it is based on true experiences. One simply tells the truth. One needs to be a good liar to tell a made-up story well. Some people will sense the lie regardless. They will spot inconsistencies in the lie, while a true story can have inconsistencies.

The irreverent discussion was never on audience perception of the story. That is going beyond what it even started as.

But that statement in more on personal opinion and not stated fact.

[VayneHunters]

After Dragon Age Veilguard, I have absolutely no trust left. It was already difficult after Andromeda and Anthem, but now, I’m not even looking forward to the next Mass Effect, even though the trilogy is my favorite series. The woke doctrine, I can’t take it anymore. The games are bland and uninteresting.

[sdack]

Originally posted by Dwarven Runesmith:

The irreverent discussion was never on audience perception of the story.

I believe when people say they find the story not compelling then it has everything to do with it.

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by Complete Domination:

Originally posted by Dwarven Runesmith:

Incels were coins back in 1993.
Plus, anyone who understands social problems like mental health, educational problems, and poverty for example are woke by definition.

Woke has been flaunted by thoses as well, so everyone now argues of buzzwords instead actually thinking on how does it even effect anything.

Like how will pronounce effect anyone att all? It does negative impact anyone but those who hate others.
They may dislike with that type of folk, but on internet it's just fear mongering and disinformation.

It's not disinformation to not agree with forcefeeding agenda to gamers tho. There's time and place for activism and video game is not one of them. Take this kind of ♥♥♥♥ to college or political stage where it belongs and leave escapism alone. We have enough with ♥♥♥♥♥♥ "fight for justice" type in our real lives.

I know this is an older post in this thread but this kind of statement always strikes me as bizarre to say the least.

Games are no different than any other entertainment medium in that they can balance being both a consumer product/content and a work of artistic expression. Imagine telling a filmmaker that "there is a time and a place for activism and film is not one of them!" They would look at you like you are insane because so much of the most famous, most influential work in film is rooted in some kind of social or political commentary.

Let's bring this to another entertainment medium. Imagine telling The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Rage Against the Machine that "There is a time and a place for activism and music isn't one of them!"

Games may have had a very mechanical start back in the 70's and 80's but like every other fusion of art and entertainment, they have evolved and have become a valid medium for social, political, and emotional expression. The only reason why this is such a controversial take is because certain subsets of people have been conditioned by socio-political echo-chambers and clickbait/engagement seeking content creators to get angry when they see very specific elements in ANY artistic medium without using an ounce of critical thinking, self-awareness, or basic levels of empathy.

[RohanSpartan]

Mass Effect died with 3. Andromeda is a fun, "Maybe canon, maybe not canon" time waster. Like Halo 4 was for the Halo series. Reach was the last game in the Halo series. There won't be a "Mass Effect 4" because no one cares enough. It's not hate, just apathy. And we all know what apathy is, thanks to a character from an actually good Bioware game from the 2000s.

[Truen]

The pronouns and all the leftwing weirdness needs to stop.

[alex010300]

It’s made for the modern audience like Concord.