MaYtriX wrote...
daisekihan wrote...
commonperson wrote...
I have to say I agree. I find this "hold the line" thing kind of distrubing. An writer sits down to create a piece of work and pours their soul in to it. They create something they feel is powerful and moving and resolves the story they have been telling. Then just because a vocal group of individuals don't like it they are expected to change their story. That's akin to going back and changing Lord of the Rings to a slap happy road trip. This kind of loops back to an "ownership" argument regarding art. Art for the viewer versus Art for art's sake. Frankly I'm of the opinion the artist creates the work for themselves, they put it out there for people to take from it what they will. Mass Effect 3 was a poigniont story with a powerful conclusion. It's like in Serenity, no one wanted Wash to die. But we needed him to die, we needed to be reminded that the universe isn't shiny and things don't always turn out the way we hope.
My God, do you make a hobby of repeating the same tired arguments that have nothing to do with what we're actually objecting to? We don't mind Shepard dying or the ending not being sunshine and roses, we just want it to make sense --- as in, why did the Normandy leave the battle and zip off into hyperspace? Also, as it stands, you're comparison isn't quite accurate, because in ME everyone (except perhaps those on the Normandy) is going to die of starvation due to lack of resources with a population that depends on the relays, and even if some places make it, Earth is definitely screwed due half of it being reduced to firey rubble while its population triples.
We want to CHOOSE our ending. That's the whole point of the mass effect series, isn't it?
Not "16" slightly different endings, all with the same major results.
I agree in principle, I'm just saying that the previous poster is using a scarecrow argument that all people who object to the endings care about is letting Shepard walk off into the sunset.





Retour en haut






