23455 réponses à ce sujet

[chomicze]

Then you should understand what we are talking about. Majority of people, who take ending like it is, were only playing ME3. It's just hard for me to (and to the others, as I presume) understand, how this rich, logic and detailed universe (explained to us since ME1) crashes into godchild (I know, that his/her body is metaphoric, but still).

Anyway, I've abandoned my hopes to get rid of this bs, now just waiting to see closure for my Shep, and other characters, that I'm so invested with. Too much playtime to just see them smiling on some planet, after their leader, friend or lover possibly just died...

Modifié par chomicze, 27 avril 2012 - 11:56 .

[AmstradHero]

feliciano2040 wrote...

SkaldFish wrote...
Then you have been very selective in your reading.

I'm relatively new here, still, so far, the reality is that the majority of people dismiss the idea frontally, instead of working their neurons as a healthy, intellectualy stimulated person would do, sadly, that is our reality as videogamers.
We are an inmature audience.

No, the claim that gamers are an immature audience is the catch-cry of journalists who are simply dismissing the uproar over the ending as "whining gamers who are complaining because the didn't get a happy ending". This is uninformed and unintelligent debate. The worst example were the people who would start their argument with "I haven't played the game, but..." or "I haven't finished the game, but..." These people have no right to judge this situation, because they do not understand why the complaints are occurring. As such, they are making an emotional/value judgement rather than literary one.

There are countless posts discussing possibilities and issues raised by the ending. The problem is that the ending does not hold up to basic scrutiny of logic, lore or continuity, let alone maintain literary and thematic  consistency with the rest of the series. As the ending is factually and thematically inconsistent with the rest of the series, it has no value in the Mass Effect story.

feliciano2040 wrote...

SkaldFish wrote... 
Most of these questions have been discussed at length on many threads. Why? The very fact that we are suddenly presented, in the final minutes of the narrative, with a character about whom we have to ask such foundational questions, is one of the things that makes the ending so egregious. Mistaking clumsy execution for profundity does not magically transform it into such.

I can hardly believe how there's anything wrong with introducing a new character at the final moments of a story, you could PERHAPS have an argument by saying one theme was re-prioritized over another one, which is a legitimate complaint.

Then I suggest you study story/plot design some more. That will explain why.

[Redbelle]

feliciano2040 wrote...

SkaldFish wrote...

Then you have been very selective in your reading.

I'm relatively new here, still, so far, the reality is that the majority of people dismiss the idea frontally, instead of working their neurons as a healthy, intellectualy stimulated person would do, sadly, that is our reality as videogamers.

We are an inmature audience.

SkaldFish wrote... 

Most of these questions have been discussed at length on many threads. Why? The very fact that we are suddenly presented, in the final minutes of the narrative, with a character about whom we have to ask such foundational questions, is one of the things that makes the ending so egregious. Mistaking clumsy execution for profundity does not magically transform it into such.

So, when you ask yourself these questions, what are your answers, and from where do they come?

I can hardly believe how there's anything wrong with introducing a new character at the final moments of a story, you could PERHAPS have an argument by saying one theme was re-prioritized over another one, which is a legitimate complaint.

The fact that many people say he is an antagonist is missing the point by light-years.

As to how I answer those questions ? Well, many of those I haven't answered myself, but there's also another point missed by the retakers, something isn't stupid simply because I haven't grasped it's meaning yet.

I disagree that gamers are imature by nature based little evidence other than my own meandering experiences..... yet I think they bear scrutiny.

When I got my first NES..... oh century's back, I had an older brother who played it too. He's now in his mid 30's. I've also seen the elderly play video games. While this doesn't cover the charge of being immature I think it does support the fact that ppl who play games are not only children. Adults play as well.

On the charge of being immature...... I'd be interested to find out why you think this. For me Gaming is escapism that I can also achieve by reading a book or popping on a movie. I would argue that we, the gaming community have a level of imagination that makes it easier for us to accept new rules that gaming throws our way. We are adaptable and have found a medium that not only demands we pay attention to the medium of entertainment, but also feedbacks to create a unique experience that you may find in competitive sport.

Onto the Star kid. Ooooh boy. Deep breath and here we go.... again.

Story telling follows rules. To make a story you can apply a formula. In some ways it has it's own science since ppl can read 100 books, come up with the narrative structure of those books and report what structures generally appear. Most follow the usual pattern of beginning - introduce world, characters, the mission, The middle - character interact with world and do stuff relating to mission, and The End - Tie up plot point, resolve mission.

Having said story telling is a science I'm now going to flip that on it's head and say it can also be an art form. Artists can take these rules and bend/break them. E.g. We are never told that Sovereign is the big bad but his coming is foreshadowed so effectively in ME1 that we accept his introduction as a character near the middle to end of the game. However, break the rules of story telling to often and you lose narrative cohesion. The plot and/or mission then loses its power as a driving force for our hero/s and the reader starts to wonder 'What was the story all about'?

It's at this point that the story fails as a story. A good story keeps the witness immersed. Think of movies. Do you want to come out of a cinema raving about how cool it was or coming out thinking what on earth just happened? Good stories carry their audience. The Star Kid's entire dialogue carries very little of the plot of the ME trilogy. Sure it's intellectural. But that kids presence and dialogue derails Shep's mission of 'beat the Reapers'.

To summarise. We are given no forshadowing of a character who is meant to be important resulting in an uneasy presence that makes grand sweeping statements  that we have no established narartive reason to trust and can argue are based on shaky logic.

Also bear in mind the ending dialogue was written by a bod in BW who did not submit his work to quality control, (according to a source), all the rest of the ME script was subjected to quality control, i.e. other writers who would point out flaws in the dialogue or logic. With this in mind the gap between the narrative cohesion of the rest of the game and the last 10 mins is explained as a 1-2 man effort to do the job alot of other writers should have been doing.

Modifié par Redbelle, 28 avril 2012 - 12:02 .

[Elizabeth Lestrad]

@Redbell

Agree whole heartedly. Anyone whose ever taken even a high-school level course in creative writing knows that Bioware violated the rules of writing by introducing the "true villian" (after all, didn't we all think that Harbinger/Sovereign, the named Reapers were the true enemy?) at the last second of the game in what boiled down to the biggest WTF moment in my gaming career.

The thing I feel most insulted by however is how no matter how prepared you are going into battle, Shepard's death is shoved down your throat. I'm supposed to believe that a guy/gal who, for all intents and purposes, could litterally dive into Hell itself and come back alive would get killed this easily? No.

And then theres all the continuity and logic mistakes made that this fine gent summed up perfectly:
in3g&index=8&feature=plpp_video

But what I object to most of all is being robbed of the expected satisfaction of trouncing the Reapers into oblivion and "watching the expression on Harbingers face" (metaphorically of course) as he was defeated by "insects". To watch as Shepard goes John McClaine on Harbinger's metallic hide.

As it stands there wasnt even remotely a victory no matter what ending you pick because the universe still ends up going to hell, the reapers get the last laugh and if anyone did survive the stranded fleet would destroy eachother in seconds fighting over the remains of Earth.

So Bioware, I'm waiting for that happy ending....

Modifié par Elizabeth Lestrad, 28 avril 2012 - 12:25 .

[Aylyese]

ghost9191 wrote...

didnt edit it, like i said he said synthetic life, google the word. and i just did the end on mine again to be sure i wasnt, he says you can wipe out all synthetic life even the geth, even you are partly synthetic. but he doesnt say and most of the technology. put time into the game and get your ems higher.

You know you couldhave CHECKED the scene on youtube before putting your fooot in your mouth right?

I would have to start from ME because I don't have XBoX Gold - but... what is the point? All that so I can get a ever so slightly less objectional ending with half a sentence less? All three options are still ethically and morally objectional.

Besides, this still does not bode well for the Quarians, as Tali explained that the Geth have been uploading themselves into their suits to help them adapt to life on Rannoch faster, showing that their suits may be at the very least some form of VI. 

Someone else mentioned obviously it didn't happen because Tali may get off the Normandy at the end. That isn't proof of anything more than another plot hole. =)

[LiarasShield]

at this point it isn't even a exactly a happy ending I'm waiting for just a decent meaningful one where my sacrifice ment something instead of the galaxy being screwed over and maybe for a good ending in the good destroy ending where shepard may live

[Thanatos144]

LiarasShield wrote...

because if you did everyones loyalty mission and if you were bright and sent people that fit the occupation that you have them do they have a chance of everybody living if you were a moron didn't do the loyalty missions or upgrade your ships or make smart tactical decisions then everybody including shepard dies

and how is this different in ME3? Everything leads up to a point just
like in ME2. At that point no mater what you do the ending is the same
only who is left alive after is different. The is the same thing in
ME3....the main difference is they did a better job of keeping the
illusion place in ME2

[Thanatos144]

LiarasShield wrote...

I just don't see why thanatos can't see a core issue espically with character perfomance and stragetic decisions since he played mass effect 2 lol

  Oh I see your point of view about how you think charectars should have acted.....I just think your wrong. Maybe the extended cut will help you understand the decision for joker to take off or for people to leave shepard for dead. It isnt something new for them. They did it before as well.

[Thanatos144]

Benchpress610 wrote...

I don’t know why are we wasting time and brain cells with this…err guy. He is not interested in a rational discussion. He just wants to provoke and perhaps feel validated by the attention he is generating. He can’t be reason with. He can’t be bargain with. He absolutely won’t stop trolling. He says he’s moved on. I say: Bull…then why does he keep coming back?..... Just ignore him…

If you really dont have anything contrctive to say with regards to me why ever would I try to be constructive with you? You cant teach the blind to see and you cant debate a closed mind.

[porky88]

chomicze wrote...

Then you should understand what we are talking about. Majority of people, who take ending like it is, were only playing ME3. It's just hard for me to (and to the others, as I presume) understand, how this rich, logic and detailed universe (explained to us since ME1) crashes into godchild (I know, that his/her body is metaphoric, but still).

Anyway, I've abandoned my hopes to get rid of this bs, now just waiting to see closure for my Shep, and other characters, that I'm so invested with. Too much playtime to just see them smiling on some planet, after their leader, friend or lover possibly just died...

Personally, godchild isn’t what angers me. It’s the fact that Shep doesn’t get to confront him. He just bosses Shep around. Tells us how it is and this is what’s happening. We have the option to question every major character ever encountered. The exception is godchild. This amazing world with endless possibilities became very linear, as a result. They owe us a long Q&A with that kid, in my opinion. lol somebody's got to give the kid the talk.

Modifié par porky88, 28 avril 2012 - 04:14 .

[Thanatos144]

Cant Planet wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

I just don't see why thanatos can't see a core issue espically with character perfomance and stragetic decisions since he played mass effect 2 lol

You are entirely missing the point. For some people, it's not about understanding or difference of opinion. It's about getting people upset, which is how they get their entertainment. Every angry reply entertains them, and they will say whatever they can to provoke those angry replies, whether they believe what they're saying or not.

You cannot "convince" them. You are not having the same conversation as they are. You are stating your opinion. They are saying whatever they can think of to go against your opinion, for sport. It's a game to them, and the moment you play, they win.

The only solution is to ignore them, and treat their posts like they aren't even there. But there's always someone who doesn't get that, and tries to engage them with reasoned arguments, or anger, or insults, and It Does Not Work.

It will never work.

it is not me that pisses people off. It is that I dont act like you. Sorry but I dont keep a closed mind.

[Aylyese]

Thanatos144 wrote...
 Oh I see your point of view about how you think charectars should have acted.....I just think your wrong. Maybe the extended cut will help you understand the decision for joker to take off or for people to leave shepard for dead. It isnt something new for them. They did it before as well.

Well since you obviously 'get it', perhaps you can enlighten us to what we missed in the game that explains this stuff?

[Thanatos144]

Aylyese wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...
 Oh I see your point of view about how you think charectars should have acted.....I just think your wrong. Maybe the extended cut will help you understand the decision for joker to take off or for people to leave shepard for dead. It isnt something new for them. They did it before as well.

Well since you obviously 'get it', perhaps you can enlighten us to what we missed in the game that explains this stuff?

They thought shepard was dead and retreated......thats all there is to it. Just like they did when the collectors destroyed the normandy.

[Aylyese]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...
 Oh I see your point of view about how you think charectars should have acted.....I just think your wrong. Maybe the extended cut will help you understand the decision for joker to take off or for people to leave shepard for dead. It isnt something new for them. They did it before as well.

Well since you obviously 'get it', perhaps you can enlighten us to what we missed in the game that explains this stuff?

They thought shepard was dead and retreated......thats all there is to it. Just like they did when the collectors destroyed the normandy.

There is a world of difference between the destruction of the SR1 and the "Final epic battle to take the earth back from the Reapers". The Normandy was gone and they were in escape pods. HOW were they meant to fight? 

In ME3, the Normandy is participating in the fight against the Reapers. Your crew is on the ground with you being hammered by Harbinger. So they think Shepard is dead and decide to leave.. Oh well, no need to fight the Reapers today??? Of course, the Citadel Opened, which OBVIOUSLY alerted the Admiral to the fact that Shep was alive, and then Shep replies to the Admiral, and Tada we have proof of life...

Yet still Joker beams up the team and decides to run away in the middle of the fight against the enemy when it looks like they are about to win because the crucible just docked with the citadel.

WTF?

Not even remotely similar situations.

[xjmz250]

Aylyese wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...
 Oh I see your point of view about how you think charectars should have acted.....I just think your wrong. Maybe the extended cut will help you understand the decision for joker to take off or for people to leave shepard for dead. It isnt something new for them. They did it before as well.

Well since you obviously 'get it', perhaps you can enlighten us to what we missed in the game that explains this stuff?

They thought shepard was dead and retreated......thats all there is to it. Just like they did when the collectors destroyed the normandy.

There is a world of difference between the destruction of the SR1 and the "Final epic battle to take the earth back from the Reapers". The Normandy was gone and they were in escape pods. HOW were they meant to fight? 

In ME3, the Normandy is participating in the fight against the Reapers. Your crew is on the ground with you being hammered by Harbinger. So they think Shepard is dead and decide to leave.. Oh well, no need to fight the Reapers today??? Of course, the Citadel Opened, which OBVIOUSLY alerted the Admiral to the fact that Shep was alive, and then Shep replies to the Admiral, and Tada we have proof of life...

Yet still Joker beams up the team and decides to run away in the middle of the fight against the enemy when it looks like they are about to win because the crucible just docked with the citadel.

WTF?

Not even remotely similar situations.

Well executed

[Rex Fallout]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...
 Oh I see your point of view about how you think charectars should have acted.....I just think your wrong. Maybe the extended cut will help you understand the decision for joker to take off or for people to leave shepard for dead. It isnt something new for them. They did it before as well.

Well since you obviously 'get it', perhaps you can enlighten us to what we missed in the game that explains this stuff?

They thought shepard was dead and retreated......thats all there is to it. Just like they did when the collectors destroyed the normandy.

No.  Just no.  Your logic is flawed.  With the collector battle, they had no way of fighting back and retreated.  With the battle to retake Earth, the Normandy is perfectly capable of fighting back.  Not only that, but everyone has pretty much accepted that if they don't succeed, they will die.  There is no retreat order during the retake Earth battle.  You win- or you die.  Period.  No retreat.

[Thanatos144]

You expect the normandy to fight what? I wave of energy?

[Argetfalcon]

The endings to ME1 and ME2 made you feel triumphant. ME3's ending doesn't.

and I would have liked to see more war assets in action

[Aylyese]

Thanatos144 wrote...

You expect the normandy to fight what? I wave of energy?

Reapers.... Obviously. 

[Thanatos144]

A wave a energy ... Using my phone and I can't edit posts with of or quote .

[Thanatos144]

You see it running from the energy not the reapers

[Thanatos144]

You are right about the war assets. It would have been nice to see them in.action and depending on how many you have shows how the battle rages

[walshy200]

Ending is beyond repair it wasn't bad it was broken.
Disregards everything you played for.

[mannyclouds]

wave of energy? last i checked the victory fleet jumped into the sol system to fight the reapers.
in the words of admiral hackett
"the Reapers will show us no mercy, we must give them no quarter. they will terrorize our populations, we must stand fast in the face of that terror they will advance unil our last city falls." kinda absolute if you ask me, and no where in it does he anything about fighting wave of energy. but he says allot about not retreating so when joker jumped through the mass relay that was a directly disobeying his order, and he would have let down his only possibly living realative.

[Thanatos144]

First you don't know if he did use a relay you just assume he did and second the reapers are not energy shot from citidel