494 réponses à ce sujet

[Quietness]

Dava Flava wrote...

Let me try to explain something that applies to both the ME3 endings and how people interact on forums like this....

Communication, in any form, whether it's spoken, written, or otherwise, is only successful when the speaker/author's intended meaning is interpreted correctly by the listener/audience. If communication is not successful, then some sort of miscommunication has occurred. When someone doesn't "get it," that likely means that either the author's intention was not communicated effectively or that the audience misinterpreted the author's intention... or both.

That's the real issue here with the ME3 ending (and with the miscommunication around what "get it" could mean). And, it's probably a bit of both. While I enjoy the endings and think Bioware crafted a sound and fulfilling open-ended conclusion, it's clear many fans didn't see it that way.

I'm not trying to discredit their opinions, but if the anti-enders need some sort of explanation why the endings are adequate, all I can really offer as a solution is play through it again but try to keep an open mind. Ask yourself, "What if the endings don't suck?" I don't think hearing someone else's reasons for enjoying the ending will convince anyone that it was even ok.

I used fact based inside of the game + conventions of writing on why the ending sucks. I am not asking for someones opinon, im asking for fact on why it does not. 

Getting it implies that there is no major plotholes, as why would someone write an ending to a trilogy filled with holes? As such you should be able to state clearly why without an opinion it works.

[Zix13]

Evil Minion wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending was not "objectively bad."

There are no "facts" when interpretting art.

Art is subjective. Your opinions are just that: opinions. You may think your opinions are facts because you feel strongly about them, but it still doesn't make them facts.

If there's anything you don't "get," it's apparently the difference between "subjective" and "objective" thought.

No. It's bad. It violates fundamental rules of literature, including introducing a new character with new exposition in the final segment of the story. It is bad.
Do not play the art card, art is objectively bad or good. Scribbling on a piece of paper and calling it "art" is the defence of hipstersand artistes.

Art is not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

The ME3 endings were not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

There are no "rules of literature."

You've given me absolutely no reason to accept your interpretation of the endings beyond yelling that I'm a "hipster" if I disagree with you while simultaneously complaining about people "talking down to you."

That the Earth revoles around the sun has an objective, scientific metric by which we can measure it. It holds true in every culture. Whether the ME3 endings were "good" or "bad" do not have an objective metric; therefore, it is subjective. If the ME3 endings ae "objectively bad," then you should be able to point me towards the empirical, physical, repeatable principle that demonstrates it.

I'll wait.

According to what you're saying, during the last ten minutes of ME3, Fluttershy could've showed up and started killing Reapers while Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black starting singing the US national anthem. You're saying that it would not be objectively bad, that it would not be violating rules of literature.

You can stop waiting now.

There are no "rules of literature."

And nothing like that even remotely happened.

And I'm still waiting for the physical, empirical, repeatable evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the ME3 endings were "objectively bad."

We can provide physical evidence for the existence of hydrogen atoms. Where's the evidence for a universal, immutable standard of "badness" that the ME3 endings apparently fell victim to?

+2 uneducated points.  

[dorktainian]

yes the endings were awesome.....

Running at the Light beam in london i'm surrounded by my squad mates Liara & Tali. I get hit by harbies beam and wham!!! no where to be seen.

After offing TIM and having a discussion with a Star Brat I decide that the only logical choice is the destroy the reapers (as has been the aim right through the game).

I get Flashbacks of my mates before going up in a huge red ball of flame.

The Citadel is destroyed.

The Relays are Destroyed - planetery systems where the relays are - obliterated.

However....

The Normandy is somehow travelling between relays for no apparent reason and suddenly tries to outrun the massive red ball of energy coming up 'Behind' it. How would it know? Do they have rear view mirrors on the normandy?

Anyways crashing on a planet with 2 moons, Jeff, Liara & Tali emerge from the wreckage.

Yes Liara & Tali.

Seriously.

Good endings?

[The Angry One]

Evil Minion wrote...

There are no "rules of literature."

And nothing like that even remotely happened.

And I'm still waiting for the physical, empirical, repeatable evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the ME3 endings were "objectively bad."

We can provide physical evidence for the existence of hydrogen atoms. Where's the evidence for a universal, immutable standard of "badness" that the ME3 endings apparently fell victim to?

Yes, there are. For good literature. I've already given examples, such as introducing a brand new character in the end stretch, character inconsistencies, lore violations, the whole Normandy scene which does not make any sense, has no context and forces Joker to act out of character and so on.
That is the evidence, evidence that has never been refuted.

[Narayan23]

The Angry One wrote...

These things need to be explained and *properly* foreshadowed. As it stands, the Catalyst (the character) is an out of the blue last minute addition. This violates basic storytelling rules.

Well to be fair the prothean VI said there was something directing the reapers so it was sorta foreshadowed during the main plot of ME 3.
It's just horribly implemented

[Evil Minion]

The Angry One wrote...

Dava Flava wrote...

Let me try to explain something that applies to both the ME3 endings and how people interact on forums like this....

Communication, in any form, whether it's spoken, written, or otherwise, is only successful when the speaker/author's intended meaning is interpreted correctly by the listener/audience. If communication is not successful, then some sort of miscommunication has occurred. When someone doesn't "get it," that likely means that either the author's intention was not communicated effectively or that the audience misinterpreted the author's intention... or both.

That's the real issue here with the ME3 ending (and with the miscommunication around what "get it" could mean). And, it's probably a bit of both. While I enjoy the endings and think Bioware crafted a sound and fulfilling open-ended conclusion, it's clear many fans didn't see it that way.

I'm not trying to discredit their opinions, but if the anti-enders need some sort of explanation why the endings are adequate, all I can really offer as a solution is play through it again but try to keep an open mind. Ask yourself, "What if the endings don't suck?" I don't think hearing someone else's reasons for enjoying the ending will convince anyone that it was even ok.

For the 500,000th time, if you CHOOSE to like the endings, that's your decision.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND THE FACT THAT YOU LIKE THEM.

What you do have to explain is their quality, because they are objectively bad. I have played them, I have seen them, they are bad. And not a single one of you can adequately explain why they are not.
I have repeatedly asked for any logical justification for the Normandy scene (one single scene) and gotten none.

And I'm still waiting for someone to offer objective, physical, empirical evidence that the endings were "bad," which no one on this forum has hitherto been able to do.

[moater boat]

Yes we all missed the point. If only we could be as intelligent as the OP...

[METALPUNKS]

The Angry One wrote...

METALPUNKS wrote...
It just shows how pathetic people are by accusing someone of trolling because they don't agree with it. Those same people don't deserve a good ending for that reason. You mean to us and can hash it out but you can't take it when we give it to you.

Interesting. Nobody's been "mean" here. We have asked for explanations and justifications with more substance than "you don't get it" and "it's over your head" and continually been accused of being unreasonable merely because we want you to make a case for the quality of the endings.
You yourself have been increasingly rude as time has gone by, and continually ignored any challenge to the few assertions you have made. Reflect upon your own attitude before criticising ours.

I'll admit I have been getting more and more angry. It's because I'm getting no respect. Oh and you people suck! Get over it. I know I need to. You just hate the fact that the ending is something you can't get. It bothers you so much that you have to be rude to me. Us few ending lovers can only take so much before we blow up. Some can handle it but I cannot. You make me sick to my stomach and many of you need to find yourselves spiritually. If I get kicked for that then let it be that. I won't know because in taking a break from all this bull crap and I'm going to play the heck out of a game that has one of the best endings ever written. You think the fans deserve better, after seeing everything I saw in the last 24 hours I think Bioware deserves more from their fans. You just threw them out when they didn't make this crazy elaborate ending. Sometimes this is the way it has to be, and that's a good thing.

[Quietness]

Narayan23 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

These things need to be explained and *properly* foreshadowed. As it stands, the Catalyst (the character) is an out of the blue last minute addition. This violates basic storytelling rules.

Well to be fair the prothean VI said there was something directing the reapers so it was sorta foreshadowed during the main plot of ME 3.
It's just horribly implemented

Yea i got that , remember looking at my wife and just stating

"Im going to get to the end and someway or another Shepard is going to get godsmited out of existance and im going to throw the monitor"

hours later......... i didnt throw my monitor but the rest was pretty true.

[Arppis]

Zan_Vaelius wrote...

I liked the endings too, they seem to be fitting the game. They remind me of "The Hollow Men" by T.S. Eliott
"This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but with a whimper"

But saying that, I also would not mind seeing further developments about it. After all some parts of the IT do make sense to me :3 Keep up the good work Bioware!

Yep, or Total Recall.

But I gotta check this "Hollow Men" out. Thanks for the tip.

[Evil Minion]

Narayan23 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

These things need to be explained and *properly* foreshadowed. As it stands, the Catalyst (the character) is an out of the blue last minute addition. This violates basic storytelling rules.

Well to be fair the prothean VI said there was something directing the reapers so it was sorta foreshadowed during the main plot of ME 3.
It's just horribly implemented

Yes, they probably should've started hinting at it in ME2.

But we HAVE had a glut of "rogue AIs/VIs" to deal with, hich, if you believe Ghostkid is an AI/VI, counts as foreshadowing.

[Bigdoser]

Evil Minion wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dava Flava wrote...

Let me try to explain something that applies to both the ME3 endings and how people interact on forums like this....

Communication, in any form, whether it's spoken, written, or otherwise, is only successful when the speaker/author's intended meaning is interpreted correctly by the listener/audience. If communication is not successful, then some sort of miscommunication has occurred. When someone doesn't "get it," that likely means that either the author's intention was not communicated effectively or that the audience misinterpreted the author's intention... or both.

That's the real issue here with the ME3 ending (and with the miscommunication around what "get it" could mean). And, it's probably a bit of both. While I enjoy the endings and think Bioware crafted a sound and fulfilling open-ended conclusion, it's clear many fans didn't see it that way.

I'm not trying to discredit their opinions, but if the anti-enders need some sort of explanation why the endings are adequate, all I can really offer as a solution is play through it again but try to keep an open mind. Ask yourself, "What if the endings don't suck?" I don't think hearing someone else's reasons for enjoying the ending will convince anyone that it was even ok.

For the 500,000th time, if you CHOOSE to like the endings, that's your decision.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND THE FACT THAT YOU LIKE THEM.

What you do have to explain is their quality, because they are objectively bad. I have played them, I have seen them, they are bad. And not a single one of you can adequately explain why they are not.
I have repeatedly asked for any logical justification for the Normandy scene (one single scene) and gotten none.

And I'm still waiting for someone to offer objective, physical, empirical evidence that the endings were "bad," which no one on this forum has hitherto been able to do.

Whaaaa. I don't even...I...... have you been on youtube? there are loads of videos explaning why the endings are bad there are even topics on this forums hell there is articles on the internet. 

[SinZinDetta]

TC thinks being different is so cool. In this case it is not.

[lillitheris]

moater boat wrote...

Yes we all missed the point. If only we could be as intelligent as the OP...

Fortunately they never try to explain the ending, it'd probably be too much for our feeble brains. Very kind of them.

[T-0pel]

Evil Minion wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending was not "objectively bad."

There are no "facts" when interpretting art.

Art is subjective. Your opinions are just that: opinions. You may think your opinions are facts because you feel strongly about them, but it still doesn't make them facts.

If there's anything you don't "get," it's apparently the difference between "subjective" and "objective" thought.

No. It's bad. It violates fundamental rules of literature, including introducing a new character with new exposition in the final segment of the story. It is bad.
Do not play the art card, art is objectively bad or good. Scribbling on a piece of paper and calling it "art" is the defence of hipstersand artistes.

Art is not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

The ME3 endings were not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

There are no "rules of literature."

You've given me absolutely no reason to accept your interpretation of the endings beyond yelling that I'm a "hipster" if I disagree with you while simultaneously complaining about people "talking down to you."

That the Earth revoles around the sun has an objective, scientific metric by which we can measure it. It holds true in every culture. Whether the ME3 endings were "good" or "bad" do not have an objective metric; therefore, it is subjective. If the ME3 endings ae "objectively bad," then you should be able to point me towards the empirical, physical, repeatable principle that demonstrates it.

I'll wait.

According to what you're saying, during the last ten minutes of ME3, Fluttershy could've showed up and started killing Reapers while Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black starting singing the US national anthem. You're saying that it would not be objectively bad, that it would not be violating rules of literature.

You can stop waiting now.

There are no "rules of literature."

And nothing like that even remotely happened.

And I'm still waiting for the physical, empirical, repeatable evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the ME3 endings were "objectively bad."

We can provide physical evidence for the existence of hydrogen atoms. Where's the evidence for a universal, immutable standard of "badness" that the ME3 endings apparently fell victim to?

There are hundreds of articles and youtube videos that sumarize what feels wrong with the ending.
And while there arent any rules of literature, there are certain things you should not do. For example if you are writng a detective story you should not present the "villian" right before the end for the first time. He should be a suspect from the begging so that you can say "yeah, I did not see that coming but yeah, now it makes sense". If you introduce him right near the end no such thing can happen.
And something simmilar to this happened in ME3. You should not introduce a new god like entity near the end of the game when there was almost no clue this thing is there. It just feels cheap and while you still can do it because obviously there are no rules, you have to expect a huge backslash.

[Iconoclaste]

Strange memes are seen as such, and that's ok.

[Generic Name]

I'm just going to leave this here.



Sums up the thread and ending perfectly.

[The Angry One]

Evil Minion wrote...

And I'm still waiting for someone to offer objective, physical, empirical evidence that the endings were "bad," which no one on this forum has hitherto been able to do.

- Catalyst's introduction
- The squadmate teleportation
- Joker's flight
- How do the Crucible pulses work?
- Codex violation > The crew would have taken a lethal dose of radiation
- Codex violation > The relay network does not operate in a manner that would allow the pulse to spread the way it does
- The Normandy somehow teleports to the surface of a planet without damaging the local foliage
- Shepard's sudden inability to debate with an antagonist
- Shepard being mortally injured yet being able to sprint and jump like an olympic champion
- What happened to the people of the Citadel?
- TIM's sudden presence
- Harbinger put on a bus and sidelined for no reason despite being the primary antagonist

That's just off the top of my head, there are dozens more examples of poor storytelling.

[Velocithon]

Evil Minion wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

According to what you're saying, during the last ten minutes of ME3, Fluttershy could've showed up and started killing Reapers while Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black starting singing the US national anthem. You're saying that it would not be objectively bad, that it would not be violating rules of literature.

You can stop waiting now.

There are no "rules of literature."

And nothing like that even remotely happened.

And I'm still waiting for the physical, empirical, repeatable evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the ME3 endings were "objectively bad."

We can provide physical evidence for the existence of hydrogen atoms. Where's the evidence for a universal, immutable standard of "badness" that the ME3 endings apparently fell victim to?

No rules of literature? Yes there are. Clearly, you've never been to a competent school. Beginning, middle, end. For example, that is a basic rule of literature.

No kidding nothing like that happened.

The evidence that demonstrates ME3 ending is bad? For one instance, the plotholes. What are some plotholes? Well...why was Shepard walking to the beam when you hear a soldier say "everyone is dead"? Hmmm...
How did Anderson beat Shepard to the control panel? Hmmm....
How did the squadmate on the ground suddenlt end up in the Normandy? Hmmm...
Then you have plotholes that go against the storyline, such as why Joker suddenly abandoned Shepard. Why Shepard apparently had to die. Hell, the existence of the Catalyst is a plothole. Remember the Reapers saying they had no masters? Well...yeah.

[dorktainian]

ignore the trolls cos anyone with more than 1 brain cell can see the endings suck big time.

Modifié par dorktainian, 31 mars 2012 - 07:28 .

[Dava Flava]

Maybe we should argue the existence of God instead. We might reach consensus quicker.

[Tasker]

Aurvant wrote...

No, they really weren't awesome.

Yes they were...

They were awesome in how ****e they were.  They really were awesomely ****e.

[Ossborn76]

The Angry One wrote...

What you do have to explain is their quality, because they are objectively bad. I have played them, I have seen them, they are bad. And not a single one of you can adequately explain why they are not.
I have repeatedly asked for any logical justification for the Normandy scene (one single scene) and gotten none.

This!

I only see people, who liked the endings saying: "You just don´t get it!"

Now, here´s your chance, OP... Explain!

EDIT:

Evil Minion wrote...

And I'm still waiting for someone to offer objective, physical, empirical evidence that the endings were "bad," which no one on this forum has hitherto been able to do.

ROFL.... hundreds of youtube videos, blogs, news articles... here´s a tip for you.... check the linklist, posted regularly by DJBare in the 65k+ Thread

... that would I say if I would take you serious, but with that answer...

Obvious troll is obvious

Modifié par Ossborn76, 31 mars 2012 - 07:33 .

[Quietness]

Evil Minion wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dava Flava wrote...

Let me try to explain something that applies to both the ME3 endings and how people interact on forums like this....

Communication, in any form, whether it's spoken, written, or otherwise, is only successful when the speaker/author's intended meaning is interpreted correctly by the listener/audience. If communication is not successful, then some sort of miscommunication has occurred. When someone doesn't "get it," that likely means that either the author's intention was not communicated effectively or that the audience misinterpreted the author's intention... or both.

That's the real issue here with the ME3 ending (and with the miscommunication around what "get it" could mean). And, it's probably a bit of both. While I enjoy the endings and think Bioware crafted a sound and fulfilling open-ended conclusion, it's clear many fans didn't see it that way.

I'm not trying to discredit their opinions, but if the anti-enders need some sort of explanation why the endings are adequate, all I can really offer as a solution is play through it again but try to keep an open mind. Ask yourself, "What if the endings don't suck?" I don't think hearing someone else's reasons for enjoying the ending will convince anyone that it was even ok.

For the 500,000th time, if you CHOOSE to like the endings, that's your decision.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND THE FACT THAT YOU LIKE THEM.

What you do have to explain is their quality, because they are objectively bad. I have played them, I have seen them, they are bad. And not a single one of you can adequately explain why they are not.
I have repeatedly asked for any logical justification for the Normandy scene (one single scene) and gotten none.

And I'm still waiting for someone to offer objective, physical, empirical evidence that the endings were "bad," which no one on this forum has hitherto been able to do.

you are blind?

[The Angry One]

METALPUNKS wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

METALPUNKS wrote...
It just shows how pathetic people are by accusing someone of trolling because they don't agree with it. Those same people don't deserve a good ending for that reason. You mean to us and can hash it out but you can't take it when we give it to you.

Interesting. Nobody's been "mean" here. We have asked for explanations and justifications with more substance than "you don't get it" and "it's over your head" and continually been accused of being unreasonable merely because we want you to make a case for the quality of the endings.
You yourself have been increasingly rude as time has gone by, and continually ignored any challenge to the few assertions you have made. Reflect upon your own attitude before criticising ours.

I'll admit I have been getting more and more angry. It's because I'm getting no respect. Oh and you people suck! Get over it. I know I need to. You just hate the fact that the ending is something you can't get. It bothers you so much that you have to be rude to me. Us few ending lovers can only take so much before we blow up. Some can handle it but I cannot. You make me sick to my stomach and many of you need to find yourselves spiritually. If I get kicked for that then let it be that. I won't know because in taking a break from all this bull crap and I'm going to play the heck out of a game that has one of the best endings ever written. You think the fans deserve better, after seeing everything I saw in the last 24 hours I think Bioware deserves more from their fans. You just threw them out when they didn't make this crazy elaborate ending. Sometimes this is the way it has to be, and that's a good thing.

I will ignore your obvious meltdown and I will ask the same of you that I have asked every single person like you without success.

What is it that we don't get?