1309 réponses à ce sujet

[Melra]

magikbbg wrote...

You realize that if you never played me2 or me1 you have no deep connection to the characters or story in game. When you just play me3 it's reasonable to think it's good from start to end and it make sense since almost everyone from me2 is dead. And the fill ins are uninteresting minor characters. I think the real minority is those who played me1 me2 and then loved me3 ending.

People can play the previous two games and still enjoy the ME3 ending. Just saying, don't think you know what people like. Only I know that.

[savionen]

saracen16 wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...

The only way to like the endings is if they are not real. At least for those who did play  since ME1. With very few exceptions. If there is some explanation for all the b/s in the last 10 minutes, then those 10 minutes could be brilliant. As it is now, it is just b/s.

Just check the Pool about the endings.  It is now 55.4k dislikes against 1.2k likes. That's gotta mean something.

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

The poll is a false chocie trilemma.  While I believe the endings to be unsatisfying, my lack of satisfaction is a consequence of the failure of the events of the endings to be supported by adequate foreshadowing and explanation and the absence of any meaningful epilogue regarding the outcome of the depicted events.  That the ending lacks an arbitrary luminence is irrelevant; I can accept that the mass relays were destroyed and that this destruction results in dire consequences for the assembled races, but I am unsatisfied with the lack of any meaningful examination of these consequences, preferably an examination that is affected by choices made by the player throughout the game.

BioWare stated explicitly that this is up to the player to reflect on his or her own choices. That makes you more involved in the story, not less.

Might as well just not have played Mass Effect 3 and made up the game for myself I guess.

[The Angry One]

Lightice_av wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

It suffered a gigantic explosion at it's core and did not disintegrate. The wards stayed intact and buckled.
You have no basis for saying it will tear apart into tiny bits.

With even the tiniest understanding of physics concerning massive forces in question, yes I can. It's a miracle that an object like the Citadel can stay intact at all anywhere but the most stable orbits. Different parts of the megastructure are falling at different speeds, depending on their shape, location and the amount of Eezo they contain. No force can hold them together in that situation. And then there's the Eezo to consider once more. The stuff that makes much of the structure to have negligible or negative mass. And the thing that thanks to Eezo there's no telling which direction it's even falling. Earth's gravity field isn't a major factor when you're dealing with technology that can create equal or greater gravity fields anywhere.

I repeat, you're picking the worst possible interpretation for no other reason than that you hate the ending, and actively wish death and destruction for everything involved with it.

Mass effect fields require working generators to stay up. The endings imply that all of the Citadel's systems have been heavily compromised, and that the arms start to buckle proves it.
The Citadel stays intact because of it's mass effect fields. Without them, it goes down. Again, it doesn't MATTER that the wards may break up on entry. They will still hit the Earth in one piece, two pieces or a million pieces.
The resulting fallout from all that mass hitting the Earth WILL make it uninhabitable.

[Almostfaceman]

The fact is, at best, there's evidence for a small tactical retreat from around the area of the beam. There is no evidence of a fleet-wide retreat. A fleet-wide retreat doesn't even make sense, since they weren't even sure yet if Shepard was going to be successful. They were quite obviously fighting the Reapers giving Shepard or whomever made it onto the Citadel time to get the Catalyst and Crucible going and working as a weapon. Shepard doesn't even get a chance to warn them that he's activating the weapon or making his choice or whatever, so there's no chance for the fleet to react to his decision. They're all embroiled in a life-or-death struggle.

[saracen16]

magikbbg wrote...

You realize that if you never played me2 or me1 you have no deep connection to the characters or story in game. When you just play me3 it's reasonable to think it's good from start to end and it make sense since almost everyone from me2 is dead. And the fill ins are uninteresting minor characters. I think the real minority is those who played me1 me2 and then loved me3 ending.

I disagree: most of us who like the ending actually played both ME1 and ME2 religiously and became attached to the races and characters in the game.

[Russalka]

Heather Cline wrote...

Those that like the ending are those who think that those of us who hate it are wrong and are trying to bash us, name call us, and intimidate us into going away and being less vocal. We are still vocal and still pushing for a better ending.

So you make a generalisation about generalisation towards your group.

[Persephone]

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Don't bother with Saracen, he's made up his own ending the rest of us aren't privy to.

I don't call interpretation of an established ending "making up" one. I'm not going to dignify your personal attack with a response...

But I will dignify it with a report.

Interesting how this person engages in the dishonest tactic of using his own made up version of an ending to justify the real one, then gets upsets and reports (really?) when he's called out on it.
Very interesting.

He/She is reporting you for basically calling him deluded. 

[The Angry One]

Let's put this retreat debate to rest.
Admiral Hackett is the fleet commander. Therefore only Admiral Hackett may issue a general fleet retreat. The end.

[saracen16]

Almostfaceman wrote...

The fact is, at best, there's evidence for a small tactical retreat from around the area of the beam. There is no evidence of a fleet-wide retreat. A fleet-wide retreat doesn't even make sense, since they weren't even sure yet if Shepard was going to be successful. They were quite obviously fighting the Reapers giving Shepard or whomever made it onto the Citadel time to get the Catalyst and Crucible going and working as a weapon. Shepard doesn't even get a chance to warn them that he's activating the weapon or making his choice or whatever, so there's no chance for the fleet to react to his decision. They're all embroiled in a life-or-death struggle.

It doesn't make sense to you. It makes sense to me: live to fight another die. We have different opinions on the matter and BioWare intended there to be argument about this.

[savionen]

saracen16 wrote...

magikbbg wrote...

You realize that if you never played me2 or me1 you have no deep connection to the characters or story in game. When you just play me3 it's reasonable to think it's good from start to end and it make sense since almost everyone from me2 is dead. And the fill ins are uninteresting minor characters. I think the real minority is those who played me1 me2 and then loved me3 ending.

I disagree: most of us who like the ending actually played both ME1 and ME2 religiously and became attached to the races and characters in the game.

I don't think that argument is going to lead anywhere.

The fundamental difference is that one group is okay with imagining their own ending, and the other isn't.

[piemanz]

CmdrStJean wrote...

I too am uncertain how anyone could "like" the ending as it is. I could understand how some people could be indifferent to the outcome and simply be satisfied given the quality of the rest of the content, but actually liking how things end is, well difficult for me to comprehend.

I don't think anyone who liked the ending was sitting there with a big cheesy grin on their face, for me, it's a case of it going the way I kind of expected, with a little ray of hope thrown in.

[Persephone]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

For fans (that want a story to make sense)... ignorance is the only answer.

What defines a "fan", then?

[The Angry One]

Persephone wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Don't bother with Saracen, he's made up his own ending the rest of us aren't privy to.

I don't call interpretation of an established ending "making up" one. I'm not going to dignify your personal attack with a response...

But I will dignify it with a report.

Interesting how this person engages in the dishonest tactic of using his own made up version of an ending to justify the real one, then gets upsets and reports (really?) when he's called out on it.
Very interesting.

He/She is reporting you for basically calling him deluded. 

That's reportable? 
And yes, when you start to make up your own ending and present it as fact, that hints of delusion.

[aapblok]

saracen16 wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...

The only way to like the endings is if they are not real. At least for those who did play  since ME1. With very few exceptions. If there is some explanation for all the b/s in the last 10 minutes, then those 10 minutes could be brilliant. As it is now, it is just b/s.

Just check the Pool about the endings.  It is now 55.4k dislikes against 1.2k likes. That's gotta mean something.

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

The poll is a false chocie trilemma.  While I believe the endings to be unsatisfying, my lack of satisfaction is a consequence of the failure of the events of the endings to be supported by adequate foreshadowing and explanation and the absence of any meaningful epilogue regarding the outcome of the depicted events.  That the ending lacks an arbitrary luminence is irrelevant; I can accept that the mass relays were destroyed and that this destruction results in dire consequences for the assembled races, but I am unsatisfied with the lack of any meaningful examination of these consequences, preferably an examination that is affected by choices made by the player throughout the game.

BioWare stated explicitly that this is up to the player to reflect on his or her own choices. That makes you more involved in the story, not less.

Yeah I get some things cant be answered and that is up to us to figure out - sure, I have an imagination. But there are a lot, a lot of questions that need to be addressed to be satisfactory in this whole speculation paradigm Bioware is in. 

[saracen16]

savionen wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...

The only way to like the endings is if they are not real. At least for those who did play  since ME1. With very few exceptions. If there is some explanation for all the b/s in the last 10 minutes, then those 10 minutes could be brilliant. As it is now, it is just b/s.

Just check the Pool about the endings.  It is now 55.4k dislikes against 1.2k likes. That's gotta mean something.

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

The poll is a false chocie trilemma.  While I believe the endings to be unsatisfying, my lack of satisfaction is a consequence of the failure of the events of the endings to be supported by adequate foreshadowing and explanation and the absence of any meaningful epilogue regarding the outcome of the depicted events.  That the ending lacks an arbitrary luminence is irrelevant; I can accept that the mass relays were destroyed and that this destruction results in dire consequences for the assembled races, but I am unsatisfied with the lack of any meaningful examination of these consequences, preferably an examination that is affected by choices made by the player throughout the game.

BioWare stated explicitly that this is up to the player to reflect on his or her own choices. That makes you more involved in the story, not less.

Might as well just not have played Mass Effect 3 and made up the game for myself I guess.

It's not that black and white. You've finished the game, right? Reflect on the choices you made and the lore behind the races (for example, the Krogans are planning revenge on the Salarians... will they enact that revenge?, etc.). You don't necessarily have to "imagine" or make up "fanfiction"; the ending forced you to ask questions about YOUR own galaxy. You think, yes, but only within the confines of the universe, not "so both the Krogans and Salarians are saved and suddenly they became friends".

[Lightice_av]

The Angry One wrote...

Mass effect fields require working generators to stay up. The endings imply that all of the Citadel's systems have been heavily compromised, and that the arms start to buckle proves it.

Human-made mass effect fields require working generators to stay up. But we've been explicitly told that the Reapers are perpetual motion machines in the Codex. The same almost certainly applies to the Citadel that never gets fueled with anything.

The Citadel stays intact because of it's mass effect fields. Without them, it goes down. Again, it doesn't MATTER that the wards may break up on entry. They will still hit the Earth in one piece, two pieces or a million pieces.
The resulting fallout from all that mass hitting the Earth WILL make it uninhabitable.

What exactly makes you assume that they don't stay on stable orbit or fling out of Earth's gravity well? Oh yeah, because you want everything involved in the ending to crash and burn in a fierly blaze of death. I'm tired of saying this, but I know that you would argue for exact opposite if the ending had been one you liked.

[asurace]

I could probably live with the endings if they left in some of the scenes that were apparently deleted (i.e. explaining why teammates who were running towards the conduit are alive in the end and why the hell the Normandy was flying away) and had some sort of epilogue following up on the characters and showing the impact of what had happened.

I wasn't expecting a happy ending and was fine with the bleak tone, they just need to refine the hell out of what seemed like a partially-finished conclusion.

[Brahlis]

Why is this thread still being posted in? Gross.

[Dimensio]

saracen16 wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...

The only way to like the endings is if they are not real. At least for those who did play  since ME1. With very few exceptions. If there is some explanation for all the b/s in the last 10 minutes, then those 10 minutes could be brilliant. As it is now, it is just b/s.

Just check the Pool about the endings.  It is now 55.4k dislikes against 1.2k likes. That's gotta mean something.

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

The poll is a false chocie trilemma.  While I believe the endings to be unsatisfying, my lack of satisfaction is a consequence of the failure of the events of the endings to be supported by adequate foreshadowing and explanation and the absence of any meaningful epilogue regarding the outcome of the depicted events.  That the ending lacks an arbitrary luminence is irrelevant; I can accept that the mass relays were destroyed and that this destruction results in dire consequences for the assembled races, but I am unsatisfied with the lack of any meaningful examination of these consequences, preferably an examination that is affected by choices made by the player throughout the game.

BioWare stated explicitly that this is up to the player to reflect on his or her own choices. That makes you more involved in the story, not less.

I can respect a manner of design decision of requiring the player to "reflect" upon outcomes rather than actually stating outcomes, as I am also an insufferably lazy individual (or, rather, I am programmed to emulate one).

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

It suffered a gigantic explosion at it's core and did not disintegrate. The wards stayed intact and buckled.
You have no basis for saying it will tear apart into tiny bits.

With even the tiniest understanding of physics concerning massive forces in question, yes I can. It's a miracle that an object like the Citadel can stay intact at all anywhere but the most stable orbits. Different parts of the megastructure are falling at different speeds, depending on their shape, location and the amount of Eezo they contain. No force can hold them together in that situation. And then there's the Eezo to consider once more. The stuff that makes much of the structure to have negligible or negative mass. And the thing that thanks to Eezo there's no telling which direction it's even falling. Earth's gravity field isn't a major factor when you're dealing with technology that can create equal or greater gravity fields anywhere.

I repeat, you're picking the worst possible interpretation for no other reason than that you hate the ending, and actively wish death and destruction for everything involved with it.

Mass effect fields require working generators to stay up. The endings imply that all of the Citadel's systems have been heavily compromised, and that the arms start to buckle proves it.
The Citadel stays intact because of it's mass effect fields. Without them, it goes down. Again, it doesn't MATTER that the wards may break up on entry. They will still hit the Earth in one piece, two pieces or a million pieces.
The resulting fallout from all that mass hitting the Earth WILL make it uninhabitable.

Following your logic that should have happened already: many TV satellites go up and fall into the Earth's atmosphere almost daily; hell, the Earth's uppermost atmosphere is literred with orbiting debris.

[Persephone]

The Angry One wrote...

Persephone wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Don't bother with Saracen, he's made up his own ending the rest of us aren't privy to.

I don't call interpretation of an established ending "making up" one. I'm not going to dignify your personal attack with a response...

But I will dignify it with a report.

Interesting how this person engages in the dishonest tactic of using his own made up version of an ending to justify the real one, then gets upsets and reports (really?) when he's called out on it.
Very interesting.

He/She is reporting you for basically calling him deluded. 

That's reportable? 
And yes, when you start to make up your own ending and present it as fact, that hints of delusion.

Yes, personal insults are reportable. (I have never reported anyone though)

Get over someone disagreeing with your "facts" already. Calling it "made up" isn't going to convince anyone.

[Vikali]

magikbbg wrote...

You realize that if you never played me2 or me1 you have no deep connection to the characters or story in game. When you just play me3 it's reasonable to think it's good from start to end and it make sense since almost everyone from me2 is dead. And the fill ins are uninteresting minor characters. I think the real minority is those who played me1 me2 and then loved me3 ending.

Actually, because I have played both games and read all the books, I'm actually more emotionally attached to characters like Aria and Gillian than I am to Shepard and co.

[Dranume]

Captain Shakespeare wrote...

"Heretics say one is less than two, Geth say two is less than 3.  Both are correct."

this was awesome and simplistic in its explination.  I support this.

[DESTRAUDO]

I loved the ending and i played through 1 and 2. I was also in the minority who enjoyed planet scanning. XD


  

saracen16 wrote...

magikbbg wrote...

You realize that if you never played me2 or me1 you have no deep connection to the characters or story in game. When you just play me3 it's reasonable to think it's good from start to end and it make sense since almost everyone from me2 is dead. And the fill ins are uninteresting minor characters. I think the real minority is those who played me1 me2 and then loved me3 ending.

I disagree: most of us who like the ending actually played both ME1 and ME2 religiously and became attached to the races and characters in the game.

[AtreiyaN7]

Ah yes - not surprised to see this.

The Angry One wrote...

It is not the "best" ending at all, it is the most nonsensical. And still destroys the galaxy.

Nope, I don't believe that it's the most nonsensical just because you say that it is and because you can't see the difference between Synthesis and what it represents versus what the Reapers represented. Furthermore, Synthesis clearly doesn't destroy the galaxy per the Normandy crash and the coda. The evidence that people survive and that the galaxy is not destroyed is in them, no matter how much you hate them both.

You stating your belief that it destroys the galaxy does not turn your belief into anything approaching fact.

If we're going to suddenly claim that because I believe <x>, it must be a true and incontrovertible fact, well gee, the Destruction ending destroys all synthetics and the mass relays, so I guess it destroys the entire galaxy and is the most nonsenical! Since you guys love demanding answers and justifications from everyone who doesn't feel as you do, explain how we all survive in Destruction. If you use my own hypothesis about the beams and the dispersion of energy, that would be terribly amusing - hah.

At any rate, tell me how this red beam distinguishes between machine intelligences, and, say, actual machines. Why didn't the red beam destroy every single ship in our system and every other system? How does it recognize the difference between dumb machines (and VIs for that matter) and AIs? And what about those people who qualify as cyborgs? How does Shepard manage to survive it in the breath ending? Shouldn't he/she be dead, given the amount of synthetics she has? She is, effectively, a cyborg with all the implants she has in her after all. And what about people who have biotic implants or a mechanical heart or even more mechanical replacements, etc.?

I fail to see how the Destroy ending is somehow objectively less nonsensical in any way than Synthesis if you're claiming that they're all nonsensical.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 19 mars 2012 - 08:03 .