276 réponses à ce sujet

[Kyrick]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

It is not at all a double standard to request, suggest, and demand changes to something when the product given is so clearly lackluster and poor.  Furthermore, when looking at the ending from ANY literary standpoint, given mechanics of how to tell a story, if a person claims that the Mass Effect 3 ending is somehow 'clever' or 'magnificent' then they are clearly operating from a position of ignorance of those storytelling precepts.

These are not 'my' or 'our' rules about how to effectively tell a story; they are rules that have been developed over centuries of people like Shakespeare, Twain, Vonnugut, etc (name-drop all you like) telling stories to other people that are effectively considered to be the best narratives humans have to offer.

Now, I'm not expecting Bioware to suddenly achieve Shakespearian type writing (though Mordin's death was clearly well done and emotionally impactful, as was Miranda crying when I told her it was over with on Citadel) in their conclusion.  What I AM expecting is that Bioware at least adhere's the common principles of how to tell a story.  This includes things like not leaving giant, gaping plot holes, or using lazy writing methods like deus ex machina starchildren (I laugh, because in this case it was actually a god out of the machine that pops up), or negating hundreds of hours of choices and work creating our own particular Shepard's personality only to have it snuffed out with 'chose a color'.

Ignorance is not an opinion worthy of the name.

If you have to explain symbolism, then it wasn't.

If you have to explain an ending, then it wasn't either.

Some words above to live by if you're a story writer.  Opinions are only valid when the person stating them has some knowledge and critical reasoning backing that opinion up.  I'm terribly tired of people shouting that 'all opinions are valid.'  They aren't and they never will be.  Never in the history of humanity has this been true, because there are always people who know more and can deduce more than others.  That is the PRECISE reason why those people are venerated and their opinions on matters they are familiar with are sought after; because they ARE better opinions and more valid than the raggedly hobo's living down the street shouting at people whilst waving a placard around.

Modifié par Kyrick, 19 mars 2012 - 04:47 .

[Crusina]

The Angry One wrote...

Crusina wrote...
You're assuming that people who like the ending are deluding themselves, you're assuming that because they defend it, they are dumb. You're assuming they all act the same way.

You're acting no better then the idiot who posted that video. Only seeing your side, only stating your side as the right anwser.

No. I'm saying that people WHO USE THE HIVE MIND/YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND/IT'S BEYOND YOU ARGUMENT are deluding themselves.

I specifically said there's nothing wrong with liking the ending. Just do not use faulty arguments. I hope this has been enlightening.

because I haven't seen a single pro ending person threaeten to cut the
throats of the developers. I'd quote it, but amazon deleted the review. Both sides are at fault, but the larger, more vocal side needs to be the better person.

Threating to kill people over an ending if they don't change it, is not how the group in general handles itself.

Threatening violence is foolish, and that does not represent those of us here.

You're still assuming a lot about people you don't know.




You're wrong. They do reprsent the group. Whether you like it or not, whether its the kind of people you wanting supporting the group is different.

People are dumb on both sides, and thats been proven time and time again.

[Erszebeth]

Yeah, the ending is as clever as a dog learning a new trick, which is to say not much. When doing something clever of your ending is more important than bringing closure, when having "lots of speculation" is prefered rather than having lots of choice, then maybe it means you failed to tell a story.

Modifié par Erszebeth, 19 mars 2012 - 04:50 .

[sircaren]

DemGeth wrote...

sircaren wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

sircaren wrote...

I agree we should all remain civil and respectful of other people's views. People on both sides have been at fault, but I have to say percentage-wise pro ending posts seem to be a lot more negative than those that are unhappy with the endings.

This post is about bombing a reviewer you don't agree with.


Yes....very nice......

Ah, so now Bioware is moderating youtube?

Ahhhhh so you're only civil on bioware forums and vile elsewhere is what you're saying?

I personally am civil and calm everywhere.  But I can only assume the moderator post was directed at the youtube posts, as the only really negative post in this thread is the OP.  And he certainly hasn't bothered to post this kind of thing in every thread with a negative post as the OP, on either side of the argument.

[The Angry One]

leonia42 wrote...

I'll continue holding my "I support the ending opinion" to myself if cannot be taken seriously or respectfully around here. For those that share in the opinion, I wish you best of luck on these forums. You'll never be alone, never.

You can support the ending all you like.
You got an ending you liked, fine.

The rest of us want the ending we worked for, the one we were promised.
Also, again, liking the ending is not the problem. Defending the ending by insulting those who don't like it and those who were devastated by it is the problem.

I'm also curious as to how you get over the non-logic of the Normandy scene, this is a genuine question.

[Souris]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

This might be weird, but, I love you.

No, seriously.

[The Angry One]

Crusina wrote...

You're wrong. They do reprsent the group. Whether you like it or not, whether its the kind of people you wanting supporting the group is different.

People are dumb on both sides, and thats been proven time and time again.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. I never said the entire group. I said people who use this argument. I did not say people who use this argument make up the entirety of people who like the ending.

[Kloborgg711]

Crusina wrote...

Both sides are at fault, but the larger, more vocal side needs to be the better person.

How exactly does an unmoderated unspecified number of people who are only linked in that they share one common opinion about a single issue be a "better person"?

[JMA22TB]

The only way I can imagine the ending was clever was to create a huge amount of speculation followed by a DLC release that properly ends the saga.

While that might be clever words like tacky, greedy, hubris, underhanded, deceptive, manipulative, among others come to mind too.

[GiBBsBoT05]

Thumbs down.

[Avaric4]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

He's right. We have to stay on message and stay civil, even if other parties are being less than pleasant.

Hold the line. With manners.

[DemGeth]

The Angry One wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I'll continue holding my "I support the ending opinion" to myself if cannot be taken seriously or respectfully around here. For those that share in the opinion, I wish you best of luck on these forums. You'll never be alone, never.

You can support the ending all you like.
You got an ending you liked, fine.

The rest of us want the ending we worked for, the one we were promised.
Also, again, liking the ending is not the problem. Defending the ending by insulting those who don't like it and those who were devastated by it is the problem.

I'm also curious as to how you get over the non-logic of the Normandy scene, this is a genuine question.

Same way I got over Joker FTLing the ship into a blackhole at the end of 2

Eat some Cherrios and start another play thru.  

[Lugaidster]

Lightice_av wrote...

I don't see how you have to "betray your principles". There's plenty of principles to choose from in the three endings. Shepard has always been out to save lives in the large scale above everythng else. That's his/her dominant principle. And that's what you get to fulfill.

Let's see:

Destroy: Genocide of synthetics.
Control: Removal of freedom to synthetics.
Synthesis: Removal of freedom to organics and synthetics. 

You came here to ensure that every species would get the chance to shape their future as they saw fit. None of those options permit that. Furthermore, none of those options solve the problem of "creators vs created" in a permanent way which would mean that an alternative where the reapers (and only the reapers) simply don't exist is equally favorable given the conditions.

I actually believe that destroying the relays was ok though. Why fight for the chance to shape your future if you're going to depend on other's (reaper) technology.

[Caz Neerg]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

To be fair Mr. Woo, many of those asking for change give long lists of articulately stated reason why they believe it needs to be changed.  Most of those opposing change, or indicating that they think the endings are of objectively high quality, don't expend any time or effort explaining why they think so, and refuse to respond to any of the alleged problems with the ending.  I think the "making fun of" and "belittling," of these people, while inappropriate, are due more to their perceived lack of critical thinking and unwillingness to actually explain positions taken than they are due to the mere fact that the position was taken.

[TheGunslinger]

Avaric4 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

He's right. We have to stay on message and stay civil, even if other parties are being less than pleasant.

Hold the line. With manners.

[The Angry One]

DemGeth wrote...

Same way I got over Joker FTLing the ship into a blackhole at the end of 2

Eat some Cherrios and start another play thru.  

First, he FTLed away from the black holes.
Secondly, that was a contrivance at worst.
Thirdly, it didn't violate his character and that of the entire squad. Or resurrect dead people.

[Liber320]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

In the defense of everyone putting down anyone who likes the ending, they're just angry and frustrated and think that the more people who like the endings, the less chance we'll get a different/changed/extended one.

I'm sure they don't think they actually mean most of the personal attacks, tey're just writing first and thinking later.

[DemGeth]

The Angry One wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Same way I got over Joker FTLing the ship into a blackhole at the end of 2

Eat some Cherrios and start another play thru.  

First, he FTLed away from the black holes.
Secondly, that was a contrivance at worst.
Thirdly, it didn't violate his character and that of the entire squad. Or resurrect dead people.

There is no away from black holes that the point of the IFF.  It was just a forced money shot that you have to shrug your shoulders at and move on.  

[mokponobi]

I disagree with this reviewer

I agree with Stan

I liked the idea behind endings because they tried to do something different, because we all could have predicted the "expected" tragic or heroic end for Shepard

I hated the endings because it didn't work and they were not able to bring everything together, thus it feels stupid and magical instead of logical for the world and the Shepard they and we created.

[forgottenlord]

Clever?  Shoehorned into a weakly thought out variation of AI is a cr**shoot paradigm?  In a series where you're given plenty of opportunities to violate the idea that AI is necessarily chaotic evil?  An ending that makes a claim that is explicitly violated by a paragon Shepard's actions with no ability to push back?  An individual with no personality and is incredibly we're given absolutely no power to contradict, no ability to explore and analyze, and a guiding principle that comes out of no where and for a paragon Shepard stands near the exact polar opposite position?  This is clever?

The theoretical technological singularity is a very interesting concept to explore.  There are elements in the ME Universe that could tie in quite nicely tie in to the technological singularity that make it something that could be tied in.  But it wasn't explored.  People have their minds blown because they've never thought about the technological singularity and think it's clever because they've spent so little time studying it and were given an explicit position with which they should accept at face value.  But it is far more complex than that.  It's far more akin to how, in ME1, we were told why AI should never be studied because they were inherently incompatible with organics with their own aims and objectives and none of the needs that organic races have - they have no need to trade with us so they cannot be trusted.  Then we spend a good chunk of ME2 and ME3 exploring this further and discovering that, well, maybe this is more complex than that.

The ending wasn't clever, the idea was clever.  The ending was crap because the story telling was crap - they could've worked the concept in much earlier (even talking about it post-Rannoch after talking with the Reapers - playing Javik against a Geth Prime or Tali as you explore potential rammifications and possibilities.)  But no, it's just stated by the Starchild and people start thinking about it and finding it's a cool idea - but the very fact that a cool idea spent no time evolving is exactly why it's a bad ending.  And why we feel that it has nothing to do with the themes presented in Mass Effect.

Well, that and the fact that the ending seems to have shifted focus from Shepard to the Catalyst and it feels too much like it's the end of the Catalyst's story than Shepard's.  As someone noted - Shepard's determination gave out, and then s/he's give three choices to choose from and doesn't have to do anything to get them.  That's not the Climax of Shepard's struggle.  It's the climax of the Catalyst's struggle - the being that's spent millions of years trying to figure out how to prevent the singularity, who likely seeded the design of the Crucible to seek out a better solution but has no power to personally implement it, handing the power of deciding which of the three choices to fix the Universe to its greater adversary but ultimately achieving the answer it has spent its lifetime seeking out: what is the right solution to the Technological Singularity.  Oops - wrong protagonist.

[Aidan Rhane]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

I think it's more of a case of requesting that the games ending be changed to fit what was originally promised, not what we want it to be. Then again, what was originally promised was what we wanted it to be, so...I guess you're right!

[Troubleshooter11]

DemGeth wrote...

I thought the ending was fine. I was like cool, brought peace to the galaxy....the end.

So does the bad ending in which you destroy all synthetic and organic life in the galaxy


"Armageddon, the OTHER galactic peace."

But seriously, if you like the ending, more power to you

[jkflipflopDAO]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

It's unfatomable to me that you're sitting back and just letting this fire burn brighter and brighter. 

We were promised answers. Not "make up your own ending". That's a lazy copout.

[VegaMendoza]

I liked the idea behind endings because they tried to do something different, because we all could have predicted the "expected" tragic or heroic end for Shepard

They're not different. They're the exact replica of massively popular game Deus Ex which was made in year 2000.

[The Angry One]

Let's be clear here, anger at liking the endings is directed mainly at:

- People who claim the endings are too clever for us regular people to understand.
- People who say they liked the endings, therefore no new endings must be added.

The first type are outright insulting, the second type strike me as incredibly selfish.