873 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

Ions wrote...

By creative risk, do you mean when Joker, Tali and Garrus(the latter two differing for players) betrayed themselves and the entire game up to then by fleeing through a Relay?
You forgot to add that to your OP.

Your premise that they are betraying anyone is false. You can certainly say that it is unexplained, but you're attributing reasons to the scene that are never given.

[Mahrac]

CavScout wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

Hell, Legion tries to kill Shepard if he doesn't support Legion.

Legion has the right to defend his life

[Thalorin1919]

MongoNYC wrote...

This smells of a PR "toe in water" distraction tactic that agthunter mentioned in his posts. HOLD THE LINE.

I like how paranoid everyone is on the BSN.

I also find it curious that every single person has extensive knowlege on how PR works.

Are you wearing a tinfoil hat too? God forbid others have a different opinion from you. 

[KTheAlchemist]

CavScout wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Does it not bother you the Godchild uses circular logic, contradicts himself and in one instance, blatantly lies to you?

You willing to lay these out?

Again, do you want to be taken seriously or not? The information and arguments regarding this circular logic everywhere. If you don't want to be seen just as a troll, don't do the "ask people to spoonfeed me the conterargument". It's a move definitely from Trolling 102, possibly 101.

[Necrotron]

Yuoaman wrote...

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Agreeing with the Reapers is not how I want my Shepard's story to end.

I disagree as well, but I respect your opinion.  I think the reasons for anti-ending are pretty clearly laid out in numerous videos on youtube, so I won't restate them.

The ending makes some nice points, but it was so emotionally disengaging, jarring, and seemingly incoherent/out of character that I was frustrated enough to stop being one of the 90% who don't participate in the forums/community.

[Fail_Inc]

W1BBY wrote...

MintyCool wrote...


We defend creative risk and artistic integrity in all mediums of art.

Fine. Have it you way. Be warned, this may get a little crude.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a human rapes and kills another human and calls it art. He/she claims that it was a dance executed by the his/her own body and the victim's body. The person then says that no one has any right to critique or condemn what he/she has done because it must be appreciated as art. Are you going to defend him/her?

doesn't matter had... art?

[Geneaux486]

W1BBY wrote...

MintyCool wrote...


We defend creative risk and artistic integrity in all mediums of art.

Fine. Have it you way. Be warned, this may get a little crude.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a human rapes and kills another human and calls it art. He/she claims that it was a dance executed by the his/her own body and the victim's body. The person then says that no one has any right to critique or condemn what he/she has done because it must be appreciated as art. Are you going to defend him/her?

Congrats, that is the most disturbing strawman I've seen today

[CavScout]

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

Mahrac wrote...So I shouldn't have bought something that was promsed to have '16 distinct endings' because I should have known that there were three to six, depending on deffinition, and that they were all similar-to-identical? what?

If you subscribe to her premise, then yes. I think her premise is junk and this exercise is to make that point.

EDIT: To fix formating

Modifié par CavScout, 22 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[danistrad]

@MintyCool You mention the writers a lot throughout your original post. Can you tell us how you know that the writing team was given input on the ending (much less others from the ME3 team)? I honestly feel that this was not the case and I'm inclined to think that the lead developer and head writer were coerced to push out a quick and decisive ending. While we have received some input in this regard, it has been generally vague and disingenuous (understandably so in my opinion). Also, these same people promised something that was quite different from what was received. Was this because of an artistic revelation, or forced on them by a short term profit motive to increase EA's quarterly/yearly earnings? I'm not saying that corporations are incapable of producing art, but can you still consider something art when it is a last minute, short sighted compromise to secure revenue?

[Necrotron]

The circular logic of the starchild:

We created synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you wouldn't create synthetics that kill you.

[Cloaking_Thane]

[quote]111987 wrote...
snip

[/quote]

Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

[/quote]

Legion would say you were a racist for calling EDI basically a human.

But of course it's a pessimistic viewpoint; I'm arguing from the perspective of the Reapers, as is the Star Child. You can be logical, make sense, and even have evidence to back you up, but that doesn't make you right (I for example do NOT believe the Reapers are right).

[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No he wouldn't and you're grasping with statements like that. The perspective doesn't make sense based on in game information presented directly before the confrontation.

You have the geth coming to a consensus post Legion upload that the can have individual free will legion states "I". and they cease war.

Then you have EDI in the exact same manner in a microocosm.

Stating that synthetics might wage war again is ridiculous, Turians and Humans went to war........Krogan and everyone went to war, I'm sure the Asari were involved in a few dust ups..........

but the co-exist now dont they..........if the Geth and EDI are Selfaware and have a soul surely you'd extend them the same courtesy of an Asari lets say.

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 22 mars 2012 - 01:44 .

[pomrink]

Thalorin1919 wrote...

MongoNYC wrote...

This smells of a PR "toe in water" distraction tactic that agthunter mentioned in his posts. HOLD THE LINE.

I like how paranoid everyone is on the BSN.

I also find it curious that every single person has extensive knowlege on how PR works.

Are you wearing a tinfoil hat too? God forbid others have a different opinion from you. 

Cmon, more ad hominems?

[S1at3]

This is my interpretation of the indoctrination theory, or at least what it sounded like to me:

http://tinyurl.com/8xl7vtz

[CavScout]

Spectre Hal Jordan wrote...

I'm probably just being cynical, but I'm starting to think that some of the pro ending proponents are trolls orBioware/EA plants.

What perfectly self-serving conspiracies ones weave when they don't like dissenting opinions.

[Krytheos]

ashdrake1 wrote...

Machazareel wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose. 

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

Not true.  There are a good number of people that discuss plot holes and dues ex devices.  That's nice and all, but look at the poll for people that want a good old fashioned happy ending.  Look at the we can't get the ending we want thread.  The largest user created thread on the forums.  It is primarly dedicated to a happy ending.

This has never been about a 'happy ending.' Saying so ignores basic human understanding of what's gone on thus far; people want an ending that makes sense and makes sense in a GOOD Way, i.e.: indoctrination. People CAN deal, and react VERY well to a depressing or downer ending just as much as a happy ending. 

The point of an RPG -- and of Bioware's PR lies -- was we would have multiple endings, which wasn't true in the least, and that it provides ZERO closure to anything, not least to mention of the lore improbabilities. 


Good downer endings make sense, and are well-loved by the fanbases or just disappoint their fanbases; this is NEVER been about a happy ending but a GOOD ending, which wasn't provided at ALL. You're missing the basic point -- unsurprisingly -- and arguing over shallowity when there is no shallowness in adding value to a game in direct response to poor reception. This was the case with Fallout 3, XIII and others, not because of their endings but because  of the fans reception to what was done with their favorite IP. 

We've been invested in this for several long years. This isn't a case where shallow vs substance wins over, it's the pure case of discontentment. We don't want a happy ending that's just as shallow or boring as the original -- we want an ending that MAKES sense and provides more CONTEXT, and an actual, good end and closure to the series. 

You don't just leave this open, and it doesn't mean if they DO change it is't suddenly deprived of it; this isn't an arthouse flick, where style is more important than substance. It's a video game where substance was one of its' key points, and it FAILED to deliver that and a satisfying ending to a trilogy everyone is invested in. 

Ignoring that is ignoring what this whole thing is about.Perhaps you should take an actual gander on those threads instead of looking at a few posts and thinking it represents what this whole movement is about. 

[Thalorin1919]

W1BBY wrote...

MintyCool wrote...


We defend creative risk and artistic integrity in all mediums of art.

Fine. Have it you way. Be warned, this may get a little crude.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a human rapes and kills another human and calls it art. He/she claims that it was a dance executed by the his/her own body and the victim's body. The person then says that no one has any right to critique or condemn what he/she has done because it must be appreciated as art. Are you going to defend him/her?

You're mental.

I want to congratulate you for your analogy though. Despite the fact that we are discussing the ending of video game, you thought it appriopiate to dive into the logistics of the atrocities one human can commit against another and how to justify it as "art"?

Seriously, you need to look at yourself. What the ****?

[Geneaux486]

Bathaius wrote...

The circular logic of the starchild:

We created synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you wouldn't create synthetics that kill you.

No, the reapers preserve each race in reaper form before their technological hubris not only kills them but causes collateral damage to all younger forms of organic life.  It's a theme as old as science fantasy itself, and it isn't circular logic.

[Mahrac]

CavScout wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

So I shouldn't have bought something that was promsed to have '16 distinct endings' because I should have known that there were three to six, depending on deffinition, and that they were all similar-to-identical? what?

If you subscribe to her premise, then yes. I think her premise is junk and this exercise is to make that point.

so i'm supposed to have psychic powers, or I can't contest something that contradicts it's advertisement. my mind is blown

[ashdrake1]

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Machazareel wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose. 

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

Not true.  There are a good number of people that discuss plot holes and dues ex devices.  That's nice and all, but look at the poll for people that want a good old fashioned happy ending.  Look at the we can't get the ending we want thread.  The largest user created thread on the forums.  It is primarly dedicated to a happy ending.

An honest question, can't something be happy and "deep" at the same time?

Why when it's already deep?  I am left contemplating the future of the galaxy and my friends.  A happy ending would just be cotton candy.  Satisfying at first, but leaving no lasting sensation.  Knowing what happens next cheapens the whole ending.

[stcalvin13]

Hold the Line. Don't feed the trolls.

[StartOrange]

Geneaux486 wrote...

I can see disagreeing with the OP, but to look at the sheer amount of information and sources included in the initial post and call him ignorant when he's clearly done his homework is asinine.

I'm sorry, but the sheer inconsistency of his post is what gets on my nerves.

[I RJay I]

Well I destroyed synthetics... So this does not affect my story in any way. Also, you seem to forget that this synthetics vs organics was not the original plot for Mass Effect, the original plot was the Mass Effect fields (do you see what they named the game after now?) created dark matter which the reapers were attempting to keep to a minimum to harvesting every 50k years.

And this does not excuse the space magic teleportation of my squad mates away from me in the heat of battle. It also doesn't explain why Shepard was completely motionless and lifeless inside the citadel, then he rises up into outer space without a helmet on, and suddenly he is full of life. If you chose synthesis he even runs full speed and dives off the end? What!?

It is also not OK that we were told, and the game was advertised to have several different endings. Green/Blue/Red is not a different ending, it was not as advertised, thus it is false advertising. The Universe ends up the same regardless of what happens, everyone is stranded in Sol system, relays are destroyed, reaper threat has ended.

Also, the Reapers do not know that synthetics will destroy organics, for example.  The Geth and Quarians work it out in the end.  And what's more, their purpose is moronic.  Just kill the synthetics? Not harvest organics every 50k years, kill synthetics and warn them not to make more... Game over.

Modifié par I RJay I, 22 mars 2012 - 01:48 .

[Thalorin1919]

stcalvin13 wrote...

Hold the Line. Don't feed the trolls.

Way to be. This is why your movement is so respected. 

[Geneaux486]

StartOrange wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

I can see disagreeing with the OP, but to look at the sheer amount of information and sources included in the initial post and call him ignorant when he's clearly done his homework is asinine.

I'm sorry, but the sheer inconsistency of his post is what gets on my nerves.

But it's not inconsistent.

[W1BBY]

Geneaux486 wrote...

W1BBY wrote...

MintyCool wrote...


We defend creative risk and artistic integrity in all mediums of art.

Fine. Have it you way. Be warned, this may get a little crude.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a human rapes and kills another human and calls it art. He/she claims that it was a dance executed by the his/her own body and the victim's body. The person then says that no one has any right to critique or condemn what he/she has done because it must be appreciated as art. Are you going to defend him/her?

Congrats, that is the most disturbing strawman I've seen today

I should have explained it better. The point is that any rational human being would condemn this behavior, but in doing so means that you are condemning so-called "art." This implies that there is room to critique art and to not accept what the creator has intended, especially when one pays for it. It is an extreme example and I apologize for that, but I wanted to get my point across.