350 réponses à ce sujet

[Chk-2000]

saracen16 wrote...

Chk-2000 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Additions are also changes, and to force it on the community has ethical implications: a lot of us like the endings just the way they are.

I see your point. But seen like that, every DLC is an addition and changes something somebody might have liked in the game. That would mean a studio would never be right to offer DLC or Expansion Packs to a game after it has been released.

I suppose a DLC could work: it doesn't have to be forced on those who don't like the endings.

Still, it remains to be seen what BioWare does. Only they can decide what to do. I imagine that an alternative ending will be a final DLC.

Exactly my point. By making it an optional DLC, they would hurt nobody and both sides could just enjoy the game.

[sadako]

saracen16 wrote...

Additions are also changes, and to force it on the community has ethical implications: a lot of us like the endings just the way they are.

That's what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did when he killed of Sherlock Holmes, till he took fan reactions to the knee.
Did everyone like that Sherlock Holmes died? Some did.

Did they abhor that the series was made better by having him resurrected?

Did a majority of readers of Charles Dicken's Great Expectations revolt when he wrote the revised ending after being critiqued by a fellow writer?

Was both editions an affront to each other? or complemented each other perfectly, catering for both sides of the fence?

YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. GIVE IT UP. (in a civil way)

*fixed. and now in a lighthearted shade of green red and blue. You have choices.

Modifié par sadako, 21 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[mothbanquet]

sadako wrote...

YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. GIVE IT UP.

This helps no one.  Grow up and stay civil.

[Stigweird85]

I wasn't overjoyed with how the ending panned out but I was happy enough as an ending.

I did have questions(why when I went for destruction did Edi survive? Why was Edi even on Normandy when she was in my crew? How did the crew of Normandy - a skeleton crew at that manage to populate a planent? The old man must himself be several generation removed from Shephard or he would know due to personal experiences. Why had my Shephard suddenly lost his armour but gained a pistol? Why had the citadel suddenly developed aspects of the shadow broker ship when the shadow broker ship was designed to harness the environment of one specific planet?

However I didn't experience any form of hatred about the ending(s) I had opted for destruction. The reapers were destroyed. Yes there would be repercussions of my actions but I had achieved what I(as Shephard had set out to achieve from day 1)

Since completing it I have studied the many complaints about the endings and the many theories and have come to the conclusion that this isn't the end. If you assume Shep is indoctrinated and the last conversion is an illusion then the threat is not over. At the end of the game the good ending has you in concrete rubble not steel this means that the crucible has not yet activated and the reaper threat is still very much alive.

[sadako]

sadako wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Additions
are also changes, and to force it on the community has ethical
implications: a lot of us like the endings just the way they are.

That's what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did when he killed of Sherlock Holmes, till he took fan reactions to the knee.
Did everyone like that Sherlock Holmes died? Some did.

Did they abhor that the series was made better by having him resurrected?

Did
a majority of readers of Charles Dicken's Great Expectations revolt
when he wrote the revised ending after being critiqued by a fellow
writer?

Was both editions an affront to each other? or complemented each other perfectly, catering for both sides of the fence?

YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. GIVE IT UP (in a civil way)

*fixed. and now in a lighthearted shade of green red and blue. You have choices to accept my statement as a friendly reminder, a petty insult, or simply highlighting "ethical implications"

mothbanquet wrote...

sadako wrote...

YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. GIVE IT UP.

This helps no one.  Grow up and stay civil.

It doesn't help anyone? Since when did changing the endings have "ethical implications?"
Is calling on flawed logic like what we called the bioware ending a curse word now?

Interesting. My apologies, and I have fixed the error.

Modifié par sadako, 21 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[saracen16]

sadako wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Additions are also changes, and to force it on the community has ethical implications: a lot of us like the endings just the way they are.

That's what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did when he killed of Sherlock Holmes, till he took fan reactions to the knee.
Did everyone like that Sherlock Holmes died? Some did.

Did they abhor that the series was made better by having him resurrected?

Did a majority of readers of Charles Dicken's Great Expectations revolt when he wrote the revised ending after being critiqued by a fellow writer?

Was both editions an affront to each other? or complemented each other perfectly, catering for both sides of the fence?

[color=rgb(0, 0, 255)">YOUR ] IS FLAWED. GIVE IT UP[/color]. (in a civil way)

Avoiding the trollish nature of your last statement, it was up to the writers to do it. This game is different in that it lets you think about the consequences of your actions and what it means for the future of the galaxy. To enforce a fan-made ending on others is insulting, and DLC is the only way both camps will be happy. The option of DLC is more ethically sound to appease the gamers who want a new ending while not making it mandatory for those who liked it.

Modifié par saracen16, 21 mars 2012 - 12:16 .

[moater boat]

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Do you know how to read? I'm just curious because if did know how to read it would obvious that I am not trolling. You can't deny that there will always be people who have to go against the grain. In this case, those people are going to like the endings just so they can be different. Also there are people who went into the game hoping for a dark ending. This satisfies their desires, so why would they want it changed?

The last group is what I can gather from actually reading lots of other responses from people. The talk about how they like Joker and EDI getting off the Normandy, or Anderson's death Scene or the idea of synthesis. That is all well and good, and there is no problem with them liking those. I was unable to like them because the plot that led to those points was absurd, and that's ok too. It is simply a matter of what someone values more, the emotional moments, or the continuity of good story telling.

ALSO

to say that generalizations don't work is

1. a generalization in and of itself

and

2 way wrong. As the alternative to generalizations is to talk about every single individual, which is just dumb.

In short, I'm not trolling, I'm probably just too smart for you.

[sadako]

saracen16 wrote...

Avoiding the trollish nature of your last statement, it was up to the writers to do it. This game is different in that it lets you think about the consequences of your actions and what it means for the future of the galaxy. To enforce a fan-made ending on others is insulting, and DLC is the only way both camps will be happy. The option of DLC is more ethically sound to appease the gamers who want a new ending while not making it mandatory for those who liked it.

Yes, I'm glad you finally agree that a DLC is ethically sound. I'm frankly a bit peeved at the fact that you have been defending against "any changes" to the endings as you think it has ethical implications, which I proceeded to give examples which shows that it does not have ethical implications. It's just writer's (in this case, the corporation's) freedom to decide if the audience is more important, or the company ego.

The ball is firmly in Bioware's park now.

Modifié par sadako, 21 mars 2012 - 12:22 .

[saracen16]

moater boat wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Do you know how to read? I'm just curious because if did know how to read it would obvious that I am not trolling. You can't deny that there will always be people who have to go against the grain

That's a generalization based on your observation. You think we like the ending just for the sake of liking it? Sure, the law of averages always states that there will be an opposite to everything, but that doesn't mean it's there just for the hell of it. Why'd you think many ****s defected in WWII?

[Genera1Nemesis]

The Normandy crew being on the ship is the only plot-hole in the entire ending; and it isn't even a game breaking plot-hole either.

You want to talk plot holes? Watch Return of the Jedi...in the time it took Lando to fly the Falcon through the Death Star and blow it up (about 2 minutes) Luke dragged Vaders 800 lb body slowly from the heart of the Death Star to the shuttle bay...and he struggled with it. Yet it only took him two minutes. Crazy.

People weren't ready for the ME3 ending; I find that I like the themes and overall existential questions it brought up; and Sheperd did what he had to do...anything else would have been far worse than what happened. It was not a videogame ending; there was no final boss fight; it didn't spoon feed a happy ending; it was bittersweet to say the least.

I've noticed as well that some (or many who knows) of those who outright hate the ending are the ones who think the relays blowing up is 'doom and gloom' and noone survived. That's fine, that's your perspective I guess. It just strikes me as odd that these pessimists are also the ones who wanted the option of the ultra happy joy joy ending where relays are fine and Shep is dancing on a beach or something. Even if it is as these people say let me run with it for a second;

Relays blow up so people are stranded or are starving. Let's estimate the time it takes to transition or upgrade ships so that they can get home to be 50 years; an estimation don't shoot me over it. Now, this being the 'speculative' case (the very thing again that these people seem to hate) then let's estimate the total death toll at 10 billion people (that's a BIG number, and far more than I truly think but again, going with the pessimists view)

10 billion die because relays are gone.

INFINITE number of people die if Reapers win, because they keep coming back for the next million years or so (and in this cycle alone they even said at one point they would kill trillions of people or more) So even a pessimists view is still better than if the Reapers would have won.

[sadako]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Are you kidding? The Holmes books after he dies are awful.

But, guess what? That's opinion.

Just like what you said.

Actually I'll admit that the books after he dies are awful too. :lol:
Some people liked it though. And I was not one of them. But do I call Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as stupid for continuing? No, heck if people bought the publication and gave him money, why should he be worried?

The question I was trying to answer was about "ethical implications",
The only ethical implication i see is that the writer admits that the audience is more important than his ego.

Modifié par sadako, 21 mars 2012 - 12:26 .

[moater boat]

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Do you know how to read? I'm just curious because if did know how to read it would obvious that I am not trolling. You can't deny that there will always be people who have to go against the grain

That's a generalization based on your observation. You think we like the ending just for the sake of liking it? Sure, the law of averages always states that there will be an opposite to everything, but that doesn't mean it's there just for the hell of it. Why'd you think many ****s defected in WWII?

I think SOME of the people that like the endings like them just so they can be in the minority and be different. This is my third time trying to explain this very simple concept. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but you don't get a fourth time.

[Genera1Nemesis]

moater boat wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Do you know how to read? I'm just curious because if did know how to read it would obvious that I am not trolling. You can't deny that there will always be people who have to go against the grain

That's a generalization based on your observation. You think we like the ending just for the sake of liking it? Sure, the law of averages always states that there will be an opposite to everything, but that doesn't mean it's there just for the hell of it. Why'd you think many ****s defected in WWII?

I think SOME of the people that like the endings like them just so they can be in the minority and be different. This is my third time trying to explain this very simple concept. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but you don't get a fourth time.

I agree with that; and it also works both ways; SOME people hate it because they want to just roll with what they percieve as the general consensus...and don't want to invite insults onto themselves for daring to speak or think for themselves.

[moater boat]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

moater boat wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Do you know how to read? I'm just curious because if did know how to read it would obvious that I am not trolling. You can't deny that there will always be people who have to go against the grain

That's a generalization based on your observation. You think we like the ending just for the sake of liking it? Sure, the law of averages always states that there will be an opposite to everything, but that doesn't mean it's there just for the hell of it. Why'd you think many ****s defected in WWII?

I think SOME of the people that like the endings like them just so they can be in the minority and be different. This is my third time trying to explain this very simple concept. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but you don't get a fourth time.

I agree with that; and it also works both ways; SOME people hate it because they want to just roll with what they percieve as the general consensus...and don't want to invite insults onto themselves for daring to speak or think for themselves.

Absolutely, and some people hate the endings because the wanted rainbows and unicorns...

But that is not the question being asked.

[Poison_Berrie]

saracen16 wrote...

This game is different in that it lets you think about the consequences of your actions and what it means for the future of the galaxy.

There are plenty of games like that. Usually they lead up to it. Not too mention the game already did that at various points in ME 3 (and to some extent in the other ones) and did it better at those points.

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Normandy crew being on the ship is the only plot-hole in the entire ending; and it isn't even a game breaking plot-hole either.

The Catalyst reasons? The Crucible being a magical device? The fact that Shepard accepts the Catalysts reasoning at face value? The way your war assets do not effect the war, but do effect what Catalyst-boy can do with the Crucible?
Those are not to be counted as plot holes?

People weren't ready for the ME3 ending; I find that I like the themes and overall existential questions it brought up;

What existential questions? The ones they tried to hamfist in at the end?
As much as I dislike the way DX:HR made the ending down to pushing a button, they decisions you had were a cummulation of the themes of the game before that point.

I've noticed as well that some (or many who knows) of those who outright hate the ending are the ones who think the relays blowing up is 'doom and gloom' and noone survived. That's fine, that's your perspective I guess. It just strikes me as odd that these pessimists are also the ones who wanted the option of the ultra happy joy joy ending where relays are fine and Shep is dancing on a beach or something. Even if it is as these people say let me run with it for a second;

I do not need a happy ending and I am fine with Shepard dieing and from what I have seen plenty of other detractors agree that the cost should be steep.

Relays blow up so people are stranded or are starving. Let's estimate the time it takes to transition or upgrade ships so that they can get home to be 50 years; an estimation don't shoot me over it. Now, this being the 'speculative' case (the very thing again that these people seem to hate) then let's estimate the total death toll at 10 billion people (that's a BIG number, and far more than I truly think but again, going with the pessimists view)

Most homeworlds have all been destroyed to the point where the coming decade(s) it can not sustain many people. 
The Citadel has either already been culled, but even if there are survivors, they die once that thing blows up. 
Various colonies have been either outright destroyed or also fallen into Reaper hands. Many colonies are not sustainable without regular supply from more hospitable/garden worlds. 
The Infrastructure which supplies the ships has been either destroyed are is inaccesable because of no relays.

You can easily up that number by a factor 10 if not more.

If the ending is about safe guarding the coming cycle/sepcies they should be more clear about it.

[FRANCESCO84Inn]

I do not like the ending, not is a real ending, its a strange dream, not its real.

[jak11164]

i hate this ending ....... just hate it

[garf]

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Wow. so me saying most people who disagree with me are doing nothing wrong is the SAME as me calling everyone who disagrees with me entitled brats?

Would you care to clarify my understanding of your statement?

as it stands I hardly think it's fair.

[saracen16]

garf wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Wow. so me saying most people who disagree with me are doing nothing wrong is the SAME as me calling everyone who disagrees with me entitled brats?

Would you care to clarify my understanding of your statement?

as it stands I hardly think it's fair.

I was being rhetorical, showing people that generalizations don't work. Apparently, I used a bad example to fling my point across.

[saracen16]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

This game is different in that it lets you think about the consequences of your actions and what it means for the future of the galaxy.

There are plenty of games like that. Usually they lead up to it. Not too mention the game already did that at various points in ME 3 (and to some extent in the other ones) and did it better at those points.

And why shouldn't it work for ME3? On the contrary, I think it's situated perfectly.

[garf]

saracen16 wrote...

garf wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I think there are three main catagories.

Some people are just like "Oh this is a dark ending. I like dark endings and I am going to criticize those who don't"

Some people just like being in the minority, you this everywhere.

But I think there are a lot of people who like it because for them, the emotions that are shown in each scene are more important to them than a coherent plot, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess I can generalize about all the people who hate the endings as a bunch of self-entitled brats who don't have an attention span longer than 10 minutes...

Then again, why bother? Because generalizations don't work. Stop trolling.

Wow. so me saying most people who disagree with me are doing nothing wrong is the SAME as me calling everyone who disagrees with me entitled brats?

Would you care to clarify my understanding of your statement?

as it stands I hardly think it's fair.

I was being rhetorical, showing people that generalizations don't work. Apparently, I used a bad example to fling my point across.

Fair enough. all the more so since you admit to error. Both sides can do with more of that. We're ALL emotionally invested or we'd be playing paintball or something instead of ranting on the forums.

It's easy to misunderstand text. something like 95% of human communication is NOT the text of the message. The vast majority of it is non verbal. Body language facial expression, cultural expectations (looking me in the eye is a sign of honesty/looking me in the eye is a sign of disrespect)  all play a much larger role that what we say.  Both that and things such as Rythym and tone of voice, are left to the imagination on a forum.

That makes it necessary essential even, assuming one truly desires dialogue, to pick ones words carefully. This applies to those who like the endings and those who don't

While this post quotes yours I direct it to all my fellow fans on both sides of the 'ending' fence. Let's try to be civil we all agree that we love bioware. We can mostly agree that even for those who support bioware's 'artistic integrity' or who actuall are okay with the ending, that it was less than stellar. we're we disagree is about what to do about it.

Trying to turn it in to a pissing contest about who is more right (smart, hip, entitled WHATEVER) helps neither side.

[garf]

sadako wrote...

sadako wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Additions
are also changes, and to force it on the community has ethical
implications: a lot of us like the endings just the way they are.

That's what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did when he killed of Sherlock Holmes, till he took fan reactions to the knee.
Did everyone like that Sherlock Holmes died? Some did.

Did they abhor that the series was made better by having him resurrected?

Did
a majority of readers of Charles Dicken's Great Expectations revolt
when he wrote the revised ending after being critiqued by a fellow
writer?

Was both editions an affront to each other? or complemented each other perfectly, catering for both sides of the fence?

[color=rgb(0, 0, 255)">YOUR LOGIC IS ]GIVE IT UP[/color] (in a civil way)

*fixed. and now in a lighthearted shade of green red and blue. You have choices to accept my statement as a friendly reminder, a petty insult, or simply highlighting "ethical implications"

mothbanquet wrote...

sadako wrote...

YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. GIVE IT UP.

This helps no one.  Grow up and stay civil.

It doesn't help anyone? Since when did changing the endings have "ethical implications?"
Is calling on flawed logic like what we called the bioware ending a curse word now?

Interesting. My apologies, and I have fixed the error.

I think the problem is the all caps. and the last three words. It comes across and challenging and patronising. and probably engenders the same contrary response in the pro endings camp. that 'pro' poster who was found of saying 'checkmate' did in me. Just saying.

[Poison_Berrie]

saracen16 wrote...

And why shouldn't it work for ME3? On the contrary, I think it's situated perfectly.

I am not saying it does not work for ME 3. I already said it did earlier. 
What I am saying is that the context and lead up for the final choice and the way it is presented as a separate thing hinders it in comparison to what came before.