459 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

Oryonn wrote...

Why does everyone who liked to ending try to seem so deep and understanding? 

I do it without trying.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

majormajormmajor wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The same reason why people who arbitrarily hate it are over-simplifying and claiming it's hollow?

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

arbitrarily

Stop using big words you don't know the meaning of

No no, he's a pro-ender. They're deep and philosophical. They know stuffs and words.

Yes, I know what it means and meant what I said.

ar·bi·trar·y  (ärb-trr)adj.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator

Please note I used it in context of number 2.

What; no witty comeback or subjective comment? C'mon, you guys clearly know me and my level of education; continue with the attacks, please.

Modifié par Genera1Nemesis, 19 mars 2012 - 07:24 .

[Oryonn]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

majormajormmajor wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The same reason why people who arbitrarily hate it are over-simplifying and claiming it's hollow?

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

arbitrarily

Stop using big words you don't know the meaning of

No no, he's a pro-ender. They're deep and philosophical. They know stuffs and words.

Yes, I know what it means and meant what I said.

ar·bi·trar·y  (ärb-trr)adj.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator

Please note I used it in context of number 2.

What; no witty comeback or subjective comment? C'mon, you guys clearly know me and my level of education; continue with the attacks, please.

Wait man, I'm thinking. Geeze you think you're sooo entitled to my comebacks.

[Cadence of the Planes]

majormajormmajor wrote...

Notice how all these pro-ending posts use the same language? "Thought-provoking", "memorable", "endless possibility."

Almost as if they had no originality of their own, or were working off a template...

And the same could be said for the anti-ending posts?  "No choice," "color change," "plothole."

[CaptainZaysh]

Luc0s wrote...

No, I'm the only one NOT making anything up. It's you who's going the giant leaps of fate to justify these crazy plotholes in this ending.

The ME2 Arrival DLC pretty much confirmed that a mass-relay blowing up = star system wiped out.

No, it didn't.  It confirmed that ramming a mass relay with a planetoid will cause a very large explosion.  It confirmed nothing about destroying them via an energy pulse sent out from the control unit of the network.

Luc0s wrote...
The only reason why you didn't attempt to refute my list of plot-holes is because you can't. There is no possible way to justify those gigantic plot-holes without some insane leaps of fate and twisted logic AND YOU KNOW IT. That's why you just ignore the plotholes. You're not just ignorant, you're willful ignorant. That's even worse.

Somebody else already went through your laundry list in detail upstream.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Oryonn wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

majormajormmajor wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The same reason why people who arbitrarily hate it are over-simplifying and claiming it's hollow?

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

arbitrarily

Stop using big words you don't know the meaning of

No no, he's a pro-ender. They're deep and philosophical. They know stuffs and words.

Yes, I know what it means and meant what I said.

ar·bi·trar·y  (ärb-trr)adj.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator

Please note I used it in context of number 2.

What; no witty comeback or subjective comment? C'mon, you guys clearly know me and my level of education; continue with the attacks, please.

Wait man, I'm thinking. Geeze you think you're sooo entitled to my comebacks.

No, just entertained by them.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

majormajormmajor wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The same reason why people who arbitrarily hate it are over-simplifying and claiming it's hollow?

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

arbitrarily

Stop using big words you don't know the meaning of

No no, he's a pro-ender. They're deep and philosophical. They know stuffs and words.

Yes, I know what it means and meant what I said.

ar·bi·trar·y  (ärb-trr)adj.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator

Please note I used it in context of number 2.

What; no witty comeback or subjective comment? C'mon, you guys clearly know me and my level of education; continue with the attacks, please.

Wait man, I'm thinking. Geeze you think you're sooo entitled to my comebacks.

No, just entertained by them.

I do apologize for being defensive there...the last thing I want is this turning into an insult match. I respect all your opinions; I just don't like being insulted. So again, I apologize; I get hot headed sometimes lol.

[AzaZeLgaming]

What Kenson established is that slamming a planetoid into one will cause a supernova.  That's it.  Presumably destroying them with the Catalyst has a different effect.  Pulled out of his ass.

Again, there is no mention about HOW, but WHEN. Based on THE ONLY EVIDENCE we have in arrival - exploding Relay is destroying everything near it. There is NO EVIDENCE that when the network explodes it leaves everything intact. All we see is the exploding Relays.

This is cold blooded logic. The assumption of everything is OK when the network explodes has no evidence - so it has no logic behind it. It's only your way of seeing things.

If the relays didn't blow up in the same fashion (there is no arguing that they didn't blow up at all, they clearly did), then what was the massive shockwave that took down the Normandy as it tried to jump into FTL?

How come this shock wave can physically destroy the Normandy, but doesn't harm other planets, objects or ships? What caused the Normandy to crash? The energy released from the crucible didn't blow up all the ships around Earth. Why was the Normandy the only ship to be hit like that and crash?

Modifié par AzaZeLgaming, 19 mars 2012 - 07:31 .

[CaptainZaysh]

DentedHalo wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

You're not just ignorant, you're willful ignorant. That's even worse.

this... this.... a hundred times this!

Ew.  It's like listening to them f**k.

[Oryonn]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

No, I'm the only one NOT making anything up. It's you who's going the giant leaps of fate to justify these crazy plotholes in this ending.

The ME2 Arrival DLC pretty much confirmed that a mass-relay blowing up = star system wiped out.

No, it didn't.  It confirmed that ramming a mass relay with a planetoid will cause a very large explosion.  It confirmed nothing about destroying them via an energy pulse sent out from the control unit of the network.

Luc0s wrote...
The only reason why you didn't attempt to refute my list of plot-holes is because you can't. There is no possible way to justify those gigantic plot-holes without some insane leaps of fate and twisted logic AND YOU KNOW IT. That's why you just ignore the plotholes. You're not just ignorant, you're willful ignorant. That's even worse.

Somebody else already went through your laundry list in detail upstream.

Why couldn't you just say asteroid?


Jesus Christ, Pro-Enders for the LOVE OF GOD stop trying to be so academic; It's a game. 

Accept it for what it is; an ending that, when compared to the series itself, doesn't make much sense. 

Modifié par Oryonn, 19 mars 2012 - 07:32 .

[ergonomalous]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

ergonomalous wrote...

Fair enough. I am too much of a pessimist to think that any of the solutions are anything but bad. The people on these forums can't agree on something as simple as an ending to a game. I really doubt that all the species stranded in the sol system (if alive) will be able to come to an agreement that appeases everyone. Plus with the leaders of the species scattered all over the place, or dead, I don't see anything but civil war erupting. Nothing about these endings seem triumphant.

Luckily, our future will never depend on the BSN!

Anyway, I think you're wrong.  We don't need Reaper tech to achieve peace treaties and set up peaceful economies.  The galaxy is left with a vast rebuilding effort but I believe that people are up to the task.  New leaders will rise where they are needed.  It's a hopeful ending because although there is now a staggering set of challenges ahead of us, it's our future now and we can make it what we want.

My opinion is wrong? Way to be tolerant of other peoples views. I may have disagreed with you but i never said you were wrong.

[Oryonn]

Oryonn wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

No, I'm the only one NOT making anything up. It's you who's going the giant leaps of fate to justify these crazy plotholes in this ending.

The ME2 Arrival DLC pretty much confirmed that a mass-relay blowing up = star system wiped out.

No, it didn't.  It confirmed that ramming a mass relay with a planetoid will cause a very large explosion.  It confirmed nothing about destroying them via an energy pulse sent out from the control unit of the network.

Luc0s wrote...
The only reason why you didn't attempt to refute my list of plot-holes is because you can't. There is no possible way to justify those gigantic plot-holes without some insane leaps of fate and twisted logic AND YOU KNOW IT. That's why you just ignore the plotholes. You're not just ignorant, you're willful ignorant. That's even worse.

Somebody else already went through your laundry list in detail upstream.

Why couldn't you just say asteroid?


Jesus Christ, Pro-Enders for the LOVE OF GOD stop trying to be so academic; It's a game. 

Accept it for what it is; an ending that, when compared to the series itself, doesn't make much sense. 

[CaptainZaysh]

ergonomalous wrote...

My opinion is wrong? Way to be tolerant of other peoples views. I may have disagreed with you but i never said you were wrong.

If you disagree with me you must think I'm wrong.  I think your opinion is wrong but I can tolerate you holding it.

[CaptainZaysh]

Oryonn wrote...

Why couldn't you just say asteroid?

I think Kenson herself called it a planetoid, didn't she?

[Myrmedus]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...
The reason why is because there have been numerous critiques of the endings, well-structured and knowledgable, as to why they're objectively poor. Now, something objectively poor can be subjectively good depending on the audience, but from a literary perspective it commits story-telling crimes at numerous parts from the point where Shepard is lifted up on that elevator.

Sorry, Myrmedus, but well-structured and knowledgeable do not equal "objective".  You guys are totally welcome to say you didn't like it, but just because you don't believe there was enough explanation as to why Shepard could breathe on a part of the Citadel that wasn't the ward arms, or as to why Joker was attempting to outrun the explosion, doesn't make it objectively bad.

I didn't explain properly why their critique was objective.

I wish I had some links to show you but...there are plenty on the forums about. Basically, the critiques are not well-structured/knowledgable arguments commenting on whether they liked or disliked the Mass Effect 3 ending and why/why not - they are literary analyses of Mass Effect 3, exploring the various plot and story mechanics used in crafting the narrative.

The Mass Effect 3 ending is pretty much a boo-boo in terms of narrative structure: it's obscure. Sometimes, you can pull it off, but it's a risky strategy and when a great deal of your fans are angry at what came to pass, it's usually good indication that you got it wrong.

But again, that last paragraph is not why it's objectively poor, I do not have the literary background to present that case to you, but there are examples of reviews that do this - I'll see if I can find them.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Oryonn wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

No, I'm the only one NOT making anything up. It's you who's going the giant leaps of fate to justify these crazy plotholes in this ending.

The ME2 Arrival DLC pretty much confirmed that a mass-relay blowing up = star system wiped out.

No, it didn't.  It confirmed that ramming a mass relay with a planetoid will cause a very large explosion.  It confirmed nothing about destroying them via an energy pulse sent out from the control unit of the network.

Luc0s wrote...
The only reason why you didn't attempt to refute my list of plot-holes is because you can't. There is no possible way to justify those gigantic plot-holes without some insane leaps of fate and twisted logic AND YOU KNOW IT. That's why you just ignore the plotholes. You're not just ignorant, you're willful ignorant. That's even worse.

Somebody else already went through your laundry list in detail upstream.

Why couldn't you just say asteroid?


Jesus Christ, Pro-Enders for the LOVE OF GOD stop trying to be so academic; It's a game. 

Accept it for what it is; an ending that, when compared to the series itself, doesn't make much sense. 

I disagree. And if it's 'just a game' then what does it matter if it doesn't make sense? Mario jumping down pipes and teleporting to a whole different place doesn't make sense either; so why should Mass Effect recieve such critism if it is simply 'a game' for most people?

[Myrmedus]

The Relay explosion thing is ambiguous, but that actually adds to the problem of the ending: MORE ambiguity!

There's simply too much ambiguity. If you have too much of it, you lose structure.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 07:38 .

[ergonomalous]

This ending is based on speculation. My speculations can be as negetive as i want. i may disgree with your optimism but i cant say for sure you are wrong without proof.

are you intentionally trying to be abrasive?

[detroitmechworks]

Ok, after all the personal insults tossed back and forth, WHY isn't this post locked yet?

[Genera1Nemesis]

ergonomalous wrote...

This ending is based on speculation. My speculations can be as negetive as i want. i may disgree with your optimism but i cant say for sure you are wrong without proof.

are you intentionally trying to be abrasive?

You might be right in your pessimism: but that would be if you just ignore the old man and kid scene at the end...otherwise how would they still be alive in this 'bleak' future?

[CaptainZaysh]

AzaZeLgaming wrote...
Again, there is no mention about HOW, but WHEN. Based on THE ONLY EVIDENCE we have

Right there is the problem.  Not enough evidence.  It's been done once, by throwing a pla...asteroid into it.  Just like nukes can "fizzle" if they detonate in the wrong way, maybe relays can be destroyed in a non-catastrophic way by sending an energy pulse from the central point of the network.

[CaptainZaysh]

Luc0s wrote...

And he did a ******-poor job. So you're saying you can't do any better than him? I expected as much... I'm not blaming you. I wouldn't be able to defend such glaring plot-holes either. That's why the plot-holes annoy me so much and that's why the ending of ME3 is so horrible. These plot-holes can't be ignored, they're just too big and too present.

I think he did a fine job.  So nyah nyah nyah to you.

[TheMerchantMan]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Serious; not trolling. The fact you have trouble believing that somebody could genuinely like a piece of creative work you disliked says a lot about you.

Why people have such a hard time believing it is because, it's well. Very nakedly bad.

I mean sure the writing can be considered subjectively, but the reuse of art models, the nearly identical endings, and the blantant discrepancies with established canon. Put this above just subjective dislike and into objective error.

You can certainly appreciate the ending, it was stunning in scope and cinematically, especially the score it was beautiful, but the problem was that it was just one ending. We were promised radically different endings based on the work we've done. This throws that away. Which is our primary problem.

[Oryonn]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

Oryonn wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

No, I'm the only one NOT making anything up. It's you who's going the giant leaps of fate to justify these crazy plotholes in this ending.

The ME2 Arrival DLC pretty much confirmed that a mass-relay blowing up = star system wiped out.

No, it didn't.  It confirmed that ramming a mass relay with a planetoid will cause a very large explosion.  It confirmed nothing about destroying them via an energy pulse sent out from the control unit of the network.

Luc0s wrote...
The only reason why you didn't attempt to refute my list of plot-holes is because you can't. There is no possible way to justify those gigantic plot-holes without some insane leaps of fate and twisted logic AND YOU KNOW IT. That's why you just ignore the plotholes. You're not just ignorant, you're willful ignorant. That's even worse.

Somebody else already went through your laundry list in detail upstream.

Why couldn't you just say asteroid?


Jesus Christ, Pro-Enders for the LOVE OF GOD stop trying to be so academic; It's a game. 

Accept it for what it is; an ending that, when compared to the series itself, doesn't make much sense. 

I disagree. And if it's 'just a game' then what does it matter if it doesn't make sense? Mario jumping down pipes and teleporting to a whole different place doesn't make sense either; so why should Mass Effect recieve such critism if it is simply 'a game' for most people?

Bet my bottom dollar you guys could relate Mario jumping down those pipes to the harsh realities of being a midwife somehow. Ooohh Ahhhh *Deeper Meaning*

I said when compared to the series, the ending didn't make sense; which it didn't. It receives such criticism because of how it was marketed, people feel cheated. As if though they didn't get what they paid for.